Brookshire criticizes HIP Bach?

[milk]

I was a defender of Mr. Brookshire. I liked his French Suites.  However, after
reading this article, I'm tempted to delete his music from
my playlists. I simply don't understand what he's on about at all. I don't believe his
recordings are in the same league with the top HIP recordings of the last couple of decades. Who exactly
is Mr. Brookshire referring to in this article? Who has made Bach stiff? Can anyone shed any light on what
he's talking about. Does his attitude not seem arrogant and just dead wrong? I don't think I need Mr Brookshire to
save me from Inferior interpretations of Bach. What do others think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/nyregion/12musicwe.html



THE harpsichordist Bradley Brookshire is on a mission. Mr. Brookshire, an assistant conductor at the Metropolitan Opera and the director of graduate studies at the Purchase College Conservatory of Music, means to infuse Bach's oeuvre with the lifeblood he thinks revisionists have drained out of it. And his performing colleagues are on board.
"I personally — and I think the others share this — am trying to put the era of mechanistic Bach behind us," he said.
Mr. Brookshire's immediate vehicle for pursuing his mission will be Bach's "Brandenburg" Concertos Nos. 2, 4 and 5, which he and other members of the Purchase faculty, augmented by a few other like-minded musicians and billed as the Brandenburg All-Stars, will be performing Sunday afternoon in the Recital Hall at the Performing Arts Center at Purchase College.

The concertos are known for their festive character. Yet Mr. Brookshire said that, in an attempt to achieve what some regard as period accuracy, they are often approached drily and without rhythmic flexibility. That, he said, is a questionable choice, especially as it applies to the harpsichord, which, lacking dynamic contrast, needs that flexibility to gain expressivity.

"A lot of people associate rubato with the 19th century and don't realize that it's got a history going way back into the 18th century and earlier," he said, referring to the practice of taking momentary liberties with tempo. "But the 20th century tried to wipe that away, even though it's a legitimate part of the historical record."

At Sunday's performance, Mr. Brookshire promises to deliver a lively account of the concertos, summoning the spirit — and rubato — of a Romantic. The gestural aspects of his attack, he said, might appear to stand out in spots, like a cadenza in Concerto No. 5, where the attention focuses on him and his harpsichord, a custom-made copy of a 1738 German instrument whose soundboard accentuates the shift in tone color from the treble to the bass.

But he will hardly be the sole focus of attention. Also on stage at various times will be 10 tight-knit colleagues. Among them are the violinist Laurie Smukler, a member of the Purchase Faculty String Quartet, and her husband, the violist Ira Weller, who, like his wife, plays with the Purchase quartet and, like Mr. Brookshire, with the Met. The group will also include the violinist Daniel Phillips, a member of the Orion String Quartet, and his wife, the flutist Tara O'Connor, who heads the Purchase wind department.

These personal and professional ties are reflected in similar approaches to the music, and both violinists, who have played Bach in rarefied settings around the world, echoed Mr. Brookshire's rejection of 20th-century revisionism about the composer. Ms. Smukler said that she sometimes consulted Mr. Brookshire about performing the Bach repertory, while Mr. Phillips added a few superlatives to the harpsichordist's comments about it.

"Bach is the greatest music of all time," Mr. Phillips said. "It's really smart, but it's also the most meaningful emotionally and spiritually that's ever been written. So the idea that you impose an odd, stiff kind of aesthetic on it has always been a mystery to me."

[bigshot]

I actually agree to a certain extent. Not that I don't appreciate HIP... but the idea of a "proper" performance style rubs me the wrong way. There should be alternatives, ranging from HIP to whatever interpretive style performers come up with. The results should be judged by their own merits, not held up to some sort of list of historical rules. I dearly love Stokowski's Bach Transcriptions, but he would be burned at the stake for them if he was producing them today. That's just wrong.

"The chief enemy of art is good taste." Picasso

[DavidW]

Well he's not attacking the HIP movement. He is attacking the idea that rubato is inappropriate for Bach.  He thinks that in Bach's time they used it and so should he and anyone that doesn't is stiff, inflexible.

Well I don't know if I agree, but his recording could be interesting.

[eyeresist]

Well he's not attacking the HIP movement. He is attacking the idea that rubato is inappropriate for Bach.

Well yeah. And he's not saying that all HIP performances are stiff, which is good because it would be untrue.

[milk]

Well he's not attacking the HIP movement. He is attacking the idea that rubato is inappropriate for Bach.  He thinks that in Bach's time they used it and so should he and anyone that doesn't is stiff, inflexible.

Well I don't know if I agree, but his recording could be interesting.

I understand what you guys are saying but I still have a hard time with his attitude. I took "period accuracy" to mean HIP. Maybe it means something more broad or more narrow. I don't know. I have a hard time understanding what he's talking about. Well, I do understand BigShot's comment. I also enjoy Landowska's Bach even though it's not HIP. But many of the recordings I love are HIP. I don't see the problem he's talking about and I don't see his recordings as rescuing Bach from some deep or widespread problem. Anyway, I'm enjoying all the comments here. I'm always willing to learn something. So please don't hold back!

[Mirror Image]

Is this thread for real? Mom is that you again messing around on the computer?

[Scarpia]

I actually agree to a certain extent. Not that I don't appreciate HIP... but the idea of a "proper" performance style rubs me the wrong way. There should be alternatives, ranging from HIP to whatever interpretive style performers come up with. The results should be judged by their own merits, not held up to some sort of list of historical rules. I dearly love Stokowski's Bach Transcriptions, but he would be burned at the stake for them if he was producing them today. That's just wrong.

A strange statement, especially in view of the fact that Stowkowski's Bach transcriptions continue to be popular and have been recorded by various record labels without anyone being burned at the stake, that I'm aware of.   Slatkin, Kunzel, Bamert and Salonen have done it recently.

[bigshot]

Can you think of any recent conductors who alter the arrangements, make orchestral transcriptions or create abridged "symphonic synthesises" like Stokowski did? The reason Stoki's transcriptions have been recorded recently is because it's Stokowski. No conductor today could get away with doing what he did.

I miss the era of the charismatic conductor. You could tell a Stokowski performance from a Toscanini performance within the first three bars. They were totally different and equally wonderful. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. That made it interesting. Today, most conductors have the same goal: "appropriateness". Without experimentation and the opportunity to fail and learn, things become predictable and boring.

I see absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with non-HIP non-traditional performances. But it seems that I am in the minority. Most classical music fans rebel against innovation when it comes to performance style. It seems to me in the era of recording, there isn't much point creating disk after disk of fundamentally similar recordings. Once a really good "appropriate" recording is released, the main reason to record it again would be to try something different.

[Scarpia]

Can you think of any recent conductors who alter the arrangements, make orchestral transcriptions or create abridged "symphonic synthesises" like Stokowski did? The reason Stoki's transcriptions have been recorded recently is because it's Stokowski. No conductor today could get away with doing what he did.

I miss the era of the charismatic conductor. You could tell a Stokowski performance from a Toscanini performance within the first three bars. They were totally different and equally wonderful. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. That made it interesting. Today, most conductors have the same goal: "appropriateness". Without experimentation and the opportunity to fail and learn, things become predictable and boring.

I see absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with non-HIP non-traditional performances. But it seems that I am in the minority. Most classical music fans rebel against innovation when it comes to performance style. It seems to me in the era of recording, there isn't much point creating disk after disk of fundamentally similar recordings. Once a really good "appropriate" recording is released, the main reason to record it again would be to try something different.

It is not a matter of "getting away with it."  It's been done to death already by Stokowski and others and people are bored with it.

This is a transcription for orchestra that actually was something new, and I think it's terrific.

[asin]B000005J2R[/asin]

[eyeresist]

Can you think of any recent conductors who alter the arrangements, make orchestral transcriptions or create abridged "symphonic synthesises" like Stokowski did? The reason Stoki's transcriptions have been recorded recently is because it's Stokowski. No conductor today could get away with doing what he did.

In Stokowski's time there was an artistic and commercial purpose to it, as there existed a mass market for light classical music which could be introduced to the heavier works by these arrangements. The market for new works in this area is now miniscule. The part-timers buy Best of Tchaikovsky (ballets only), Opera for Dinner Parties, or Katherine Bloody Jenkins. Only aficionados now are interested in glosses of Bach, or abbreviations of Wagner (of which there have been several recent examples). Stokowski's arrangements persist partly from sentimental attachment, partly from the inimitable Stoky sparkle of the orchestration, and partly from the strengths of the original works. Plus, some of us are still not that interested in Bach straight up!

[milk]

Is this thread for real? Mom is that you again messing around on the computer?

I see my thread has invited ridicule. Perhaps
I'm sensitive but being musically uneducated I'd like to avoid being an object of derision
in the future. Could you explain why my thread is so stupid? If i understand, I'll avoid posting
the like.

[eyeresist]

I think you are oversensitive to MI's gentle kidding. Certainly this forum has seen much crueller displays of criticism.

As to the cause of this criticism, I do think you are overreacting to something of your own imagining. Mr Brookshire does not care for "stiff" Bach. Everything beyond that comes from you, not him.

[milk]

In Stokowski's time there was an artistic and commercial purpose to it, as there existed a mass market for light classical music which could be introduced to the heavier works by these arrangements. The market for new works in this area is now miniscule. The part-timers buy Best of Tchaikovsky (ballets only), Opera for Dinner Parties, or Katherine Bloody Jenkins. Only aficionados now are interested in glosses of Bach, or abbreviations of Wagner (of which there have been several recent examples). Stokowski's arrangements persist partly from sentimental attachment, partly from the inimitable Stoky sparkle of the orchestration, and partly from the strengths of the original works. Plus, some of us are still not that interested in Bach straight up!

I understand that this article was written on the occasion of a performance
of orchestral work. However, I take him to include harpsichord performances in general.
I was thinking of Brookshire's previous recordings of Bach's keyboard works. I have many great recordings
of Bach's keyboard works and I don't see any revisionist trends that hurt the music. Maybe I'm just
misunderstanding what he is saying. I'm not as musically educated as others on here. I'm just a fan. Also, I'm mainly a fan of keyboard works. I just love many of the leading HIP recordings: Leonhardt, Moroney, Staier, Gilbert, Wilson, Van Asperen, etc.

[mc ukrneal]

I see my thread has invited ridicule. Perhaps
I'm sensitive but being musically uneducated I'd like to avoid being an object of derision
in the future. Could you explain why my thread is so stupid? If i understand, I'll avoid posting
the like.

I don't know why he posted it. That is something he will have to explain. I'm not sure why he did it either if that means anything to you. These threads sometimes risk going to HIP/anti-HIP discussions, but so far everyone has kept nicely on topic. I don't think your posting is stupid at all and hope you'll keep posting.

[milk]

I think you are oversensitive to MI's gentle kidding. Certainly this forum has seen much crueller displays of criticism.

As to the cause of this criticism, I do think you are overreacting to something of your own imagining. Mr Brookshire does not care for "stiff" Bach. Everything beyond that comes from you, not him.

Really? He thinks the "lifeblood" has been drained out of "Bach's oeuvre" by "revisionists." That comes from him not me.

[milk]

I don't know why he posted it. That is something he will have to explain. I'm not sure why he did it either if that means anything to you. These threads sometimes risk going to HIP/anti-HIP discussions, but so far everyone has kept nicely on topic. I don't think your posting is stupid at all and hope you'll keep posting.

Thanks a lot. It takes me a bit of courage to post because I'm painfully uneducated about music. I just love it. I don't really understand the necessity of ad hominem attacks. I mean if my post is really stupid then I guess no one will reply. Another forum I post on bans people from criticizing a post based on the perception that the question is a rehash (my beloved cigar forum). The thinking is that everything gets rehashed at some point. I know this question touches on an argument that people may find tiresome (HIP vs. Non-HIP). I'm a fan of HIP but I wouldn't deny anyone their inclination. I'm wondering what Mr. Brookshire is saying here. I see people saying that this has nothing to do with HIP. I'm not convinced but I'm listening to everyone's point of view and trying to learn something. 

[Scarpia]

Thanks a lot. It takes me a bit of courage to post because I'm painfully uneducated about music. I just love it. I don't really understand the necessity of ad hominem attacks. I mean if my post is really stupid then I guess no one will reply. Another forum I post on bans people from criticizing a post based on the perception that the question is a rehash (my beloved cigar forum). The thinking is that everything gets rehashed at some point. I know this question touches on an argument that people may find tiresome (HIP vs. Non-HIP). I'm a fan of HIP but I wouldn't deny anyone their inclination. I'm wondering what Mr. Brookshire is saying here. I see people saying that this has nothing to do with HIP. I'm not convinced but I'm listening to everyone's point of view and trying to learn something.

For what it's worth, I think you are more educated about music than the person whose criticism you are reacting to.

[eyeresist]

Really? He thinks the "lifeblood" has been drained out of "Bach's oeuvre" by "revisionists." That comes from him not me.

That comes from the journalist, not him. And what does it matter if he does think that? He has expressed an opinion. It's not an attack on you, or the music that you like. All the music on your CDs still sounds the same, and I doubt future performances of Bach will be drastically altered by the expression of one opinion with which you disagree. Although I don't know if you do disagree; you haven't expressed any preference one way or the other as regards rubato in HIP performance.

Basically, I don't understand why there should be any controversy in this matter. I'm not even sure there is a "matter".

[milk]

That comes from the journalist, not him. And what does it matter if he does think that? He has expressed an opinion. It's not an attack on you, or the music that you like. All the music on your CDs still sounds the same, and I doubt future performances of Bach will be drastically altered by the expression of one opinion with which you disagree. Although I don't know if you do disagree; you haven't expressed any preference one way or the other as regards rubato in HIP performance.

Basically, I don't understand why there should be any controversy in this matter. I'm not even sure there is a "matter".

"Mr. Brookshire, an assistant conductor at the Metropolitan Opera and the director of graduate studies at the Purchase College Conservatory of Music, means to infuse Bach's oeuvre with the lifeblood he thinks revisionists have drained out of it."- here I think it's pretty clear that the journalist is reporting Mr. Brookshire's point of view.
If the lifeblood has been drained from Bach's music, I'd like to know about it! But seriously, you're absolutely right that it doesn't change anything for me. As I said, I'm an amateur and I'm not sure I understand rubato. I don't think Leonhardt's or Van Asperen's or Staier's Bach is dry or inflexible. Why would I post about this being that it doesn't change anything? Just for fun and to learn something. Anyway, if Brookshire's AOF was as good as Reiger's or Hills it would stay on my playlist no matter what. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest otherwise. Of course I still like his fine recording of the French Suites. But I don't think his contention is minor. I'd like to understand it.

[Florestan]

Re: the whole HIP / anti-HIP debate

Itzhak comes to the Rabbi, complaining:

- Rabbi, Shmuel is a thief and a crook. I lent him ten ducats last year and now he refuses to repay me. He should be brought to justice for that.

The Rabbi thinks deeply and replies: My son, you're right.

Itzhak leaves happy.

A few hours later, Shmuel comes to the Rabbi, complaining:

- Rabbi, Itzhak is a thief and a crook. He lent me ten ducats last year and I promised him I will repay whenever I can. But now my wife is sick and my son has just got married --- I really can't repay him, even if I would very much like to. He should be ashamed for that.

The Rabbi thinks deeply and replies: My son, you're right.

Shmuel leaves happy.

A disciple who had overheard both conversations protests:

- But, Rabbi, they can't be both right!

The Rabbi thinks deeply and replies: My son, you're right too.