Beethoven Symphonies HIP

[Scarpia]

I don't agree.  Period instrument performances are their own category and are not blending with any others.  As I see it, we have three distinct categories:  period instrument, traditional big band and modern instruments employing a HIP aesthetic.  Each of the three is very easy to identify upon listening, and each has its advantages.

I generally agree with Bulldog.  And "Historically Informed Performance" for me means the conductor actually studied historical information, such as writings of the composer, descriptions of performances in in the composer's time, treatises on performance practice written by contemporaries of the composer, etc.  Listening to a Harnoncourt record does not qualify for "historically informed." 

Excluding things like the recently released Jarvi recordings from being labeled HIP should just be a matter of definition, rather than snobbery.  I have no inclination to say that historically informed performance the only proper way to perform music.  Just that it is important to have historically informed performance because it can give deep insight into what the composer was intending.  Jarvi is in the business of applying some of that insight to modern performance.  Since it is derivative of other HIP performance, it is not a source of much insight.

[DavidRoss]

Just as I prefer to see Wagner staged as he envisioned it, with nymphs and dwarves and dragons, etc., rather than crack whores, capitalists, and drag queens, so I prefer to hear Beethoven as he imagined it, with the instrumental sonorities of his day, the size and balance of forces he intended, the shifting tempos and dynamics he sought, and so on. 

Insofar as historical scholarship can inform us regarding such matters, and then such information can be applied to contemporary practice to arrive at a reasonable semblance of what Beethoven (Bach, Mozart, et al) probably had in mind, I'm all for it!  In the first place because my respect for such masters commands interest in hearing what they were aiming for, insofar as that can be known.  Beyond that, however, I simply love the delightfully scrunchy, squawky, blatty sounds of period instruments, I love the clarity of smaller forces that permits each voice to be heard, and I love the joyful enthusiasm I hear in the sprightly tempos, vigorous dynamics, and activist rubato of the Historically Informed Period Instrument Performances that really seem to get it right!  HIPIP, hooray!

I grew up at a time when post-Romantic performance practice had all but killed the joyful spirit of much baroque and classical and even Romantic music, burying it in a heavy coffin lined with a thick padding of homogenous sound produced by enormous orchestras with overweighted strings and a stultifying sense of grave importance.  Boring, ponderous mush!  The HIP movement tore open the casket in which such music had long been buried and exposed it to the light of day, energizing it and letting in burst forth in a renewed spirit of playful joy.  And this movement has in turn inspired many contemporary large orchestras and players on modern instruments to incorporate some historically informed practices in their performances.  And thanks to all of this the performance of classical music today is far richer and more vital than it was 40 or 50 or 60 years ago--and my appreciation for and enjoyment of this music has grown as well...and sometimes in surprising ways.

For instance, growing up in an era in which Karajan was the 800 pound gorilla of orchestral classical music, I never cared much for Brahms's symphonies and thought him vastly overrated.  Mackerras changed that, and what I've heard of Gardiner's cycle is changing it further.  Bach's suites for solo cello and his sonatas & partitas for solo violin have been transformed from austere monuments to vital songs of joy.  And the incorporation of HIP attributes such as brisk tempos, lean textures, and clarity of voices into contemporary mainstream practice has vitalized many an otherwise traditional "big band" performance--and not just of "bewigged" music, but of 20th Century music as well.

In short, the range of contemporary practice, whether narrowly HIP, broadly informed by HIP, or in reaction to HIP, appears to me as a tremendously exciting and revitalizing feature of the music we all love.

P.S.  We've had some lengthy threads on this general topic before, including IIRC one specifically devoted to Beethoven--perhaps on the now-archived old forum, if anyone's interested enough to look it up.

[Marc]

You will never get ahead in the bumper-sticker industry. I hope you know that.

I regard this as a compliment.

Besides that: yours truly also has a slight problem with the language now and then, because Engliesch iznot my mozzer tangue.

Gued möning!

[Scarpia]

Just as I prefer to see Wagner staged as he envisioned it, with nymphs and dwarves and dragons, etc., rather than crack whores, capitalists, and drag queens, so I prefer to hear Beethoven as he imagined it

I thought you hate Wagner.

[Marc]

I don't agree.  Period instrument performances are their own category and are not blending with any others.  As I see it, we have three distinct categories:  period instrument, traditional big band and modern instruments employing a HIP aesthetic.  Each of the three is very easy to identify upon listening, and each has its advantages.

I don't agree. Guys like Koopman and Herreweghe for instance have switched from the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt early-HIP style to a style of their own. Suzuki is another example. And sometimes Pinnock is sounding more like Marriner than like Reinhard Goebel.

One of the main differences (in Bach) between f.i. Leonhardt and Herreweghe: the latter decided to let the singers sing in a less reciting way, because he (and Koopman) didn't agree that much anymore with the Music as speech doctrine, lectured by the HIP-conventions.
(These less strict reciting ideas were also transported to performances of other composers. Check out the differences between Harnoncourt and Herreweghe in Beethoven.)

Leonhardt has been loyal to his early HIP-conventions during all his life. So: period instrument performers aren't one united division anymore. Koopman & McCreesh are battling about Bach already for years! They surely don't want to be in the same division!
This dividing of divisions happens to each and every revolution, btw.

But there is a solution!
What about a fourth division: performances from former strict HIP-ers, who changed their view a bit towards the (post)modern way of thinking, and using those thoughts on HIP-period instruments?

This would mean: Joshua Rifkin is real HIP .... no, darn, he's NOT: he's NOT using boy sopranos in Bach. Anyway, let's forget about those freaking boys ....

Rifkin is HIP, Herreweghe & Koopman are partly-abandoned HIP, and so is (perhaps) Harnoncourt (unless of course he conducts the Concentus Musicus Wien), and Zinman with his Tonhalle Band were former-modern but now HIP-related, and Barenboim is Big Band. (Or is he? )

There you have it: FOUR distinct categories!

No, wait: what about Simon Rattle and his Berlin Philharmonic when they play Beethoven? He must be somewhere in between Zinman and Barenboim? Because Rattle is HIP-inspired, but using larger forces than Zinman!

All right then, FIVE distinct categories!

This was a very interesting thread, and the thread is threatened to be ruined by one-way-thinking, and useless discussions about which way that one way should be.

In My Humble Opinion, that is.

[Marc]

Somehow I get the idea, that strict labelling is an important issue around here. And I certainly don't want to disturb the urge to divide (.... et impera (?)).

So: let Admin label the labels!
Give definitions of various terms and words, and make divided threads for all of them.
Then we can exclude all the Järvi, Zinman and even Harnoncourt non-HIP nonsense of this thread.
Even though the thread starter mentioned Zinman himself, and wasn't insulted by some moderator. Still: beter a late lesson, than no lesson at all!

Here's an idea: let's have Admin create 3 (or more?) Beethoven symphonies threads, according f.i. to the labels that Don has provided.

After that, some moderators may throw some messages in either one of those threads, and everyone who wants music to be divided in Black and White and Grey will be happy, and no one will feel the urge to insult ignorant persons again, because the definitions and the connected thread titles are clear. If someone begins to talk about Harnoncourt in a strictly-HIP thread, he can be pointed in a very friendly way at the Board Definitions and be led to the semi-HIP or whatever thread, and after that, his/her message can be transported to that whatever thread, too.

We can work it out!
Yes, we can!

Sometimes I wish that HIPpy times were here again, where all seperated divisions, at least for a year or two, were thrown into the dust-bin.

Yeah, I know, I know, I'm a silly and naive person.
Woodstock wasn't real, and of course I realize that Charles Manson and Altamont made those HIPpy's feel what real reality was again!

Oh, btw, about HIP: I do believe that persons like Siegfried Ochs, freaking Arturo Toscannini, Hans Brandt Buys, Paul Badura-Skoda, Anthon van der Horst et al were very important for HIP, preluding, beginning and development. So, IMO, they earn their place in a HIP-related thread any time.

I also believe that the HIP movement has been helped by non-HIPpers like freaking Colin Davis, who, in the sixties, diminished the forces for f.i. Handel and Mozart in a rather extreme way, and made more people realize that the romantic Big Band 'solution' wasn't the only one, and therefore was able to create a better understanding for the small 'authentic' movement.
So, IMO, he may have his place in a HIP-related thread any time, too.

But I'd better save that blabbering for a not-so-HIP-topic.

For the moment, I'd better leave this thread.
At least I did some postings here about Beethoven symphony stuff .... HIP, WIP or RIP.

[Scarpia]

I don't agree. Guys like Koopman and Herreweghe for instance have switched from the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt early-HIP style to a style of their own. Suzuki is another example. And sometimes Pinnock is sounding more like Marriner than like Reinhard Goebel.

One of the main differences (in Bach) between f.i. Leonhardt and Herreweghe: the latter decided to let the singers sing in a less reciting way, because he (and Koopman) didn't agree that much anymore with the Music as speech doctrine, lectured by the HIP-conventions.
(These less strict reciting ideas were also transported to performances of other composers. Check out the differences between Harnoncourt and Herreweghe in Beethoven.)

Leonhardt has been loyal to his early HIP-conventions during all his life. So: period instrument performers aren't one united division anymore. Koopman & McCreesh are battling about Bach already for years! They surely don't want to be in the same division!
This dividing of divisions happens to each and every revolution, btw.

But there is a solution!
What about a fourth division: performances from former strict HIP-ers, who changed their view a bit towards the (post)modern way of thinking, and using those thoughts on HIP-period instruments?

This would mean: Joshua Rifkin is real HIP .... no, darn, he's NOT: he's NOT using boy sopranos in Bach. Anyway, let's forget about those freaking boys ....

Rifkin is HIP, Herreweghe & Koopman are partly-abandoned HIP, and so is (perhaps) Harnoncourt (unless of course he conducts the Concentus Musicus Wien), and Zinman with his Tonhalle Band were former-modern but now HIP-related, and Barenboim is Big Band. (Or is he? )

There you have it: FOUR distinct categories!

No, wait: what about Simon Rattle and his Berlin Philharmonic when they play Beethoven? He must be somewhere in between Zinman and Barenboim? Because Rattle is HIP-inspired, but using larger forces than Zinman!

All right then, FIVE distinct categories!

This was a very interesting thread, and the thread is threatened to be ruined by one-way-thinking, and useless discussions about which way that one way should be.

In My Humble Opinion, that is.

What you've written strikes me as nonsense, which merely obscures the clear and sensible distinction that Bulldog has made.  There is no need to stipulate that HIP is a clearly defined style, and that Koopman or whatnot is no longer HIP because doesn't hold to certain tenets that are "standard HIP."  They are scholars as well as conductors and are using an authentically equipped ensemble, they are HIP.  A conductor that gleens some elements from the HIP movement before conducting a piece (like Jarvi, or Rattle as you claim) is not HIP.  That is FP, fashionable performance.   In HIP one of two things must be present (preferable both) and historically knowledgeable director and an ensemble knowledgeable in historical practices.  In the Rattle example you give, neither is present.

[Marc]

What you've written strikes me as nonsense, which merely obscures the clear and sensible distinction that Bulldog has made.  There is no need to stipulate that HIP is a clearly defined style, and that Koopman or whatnot is no longer HIP because doesn't hold to certain tenets that are "standard HIP."  They are scholars as well as conductors and are using an authentically equipped ensemble, they are HIP.  A conductor that gleens some elements from the HIP movement before conducting a piece (like Jarvi, or Rattle as you claim) is not HIP.  That is FP, fashionable performance.   In HIP one of two things must be present (preferable both) and historically knowledgeable director and an ensemble knowledgeable in historical practices.  In the Rattle example you give, neither is present.

As Haitink once stated in an interview (and this is used in one of those books by Lebrecht), the fact that his interest in HIP had been slowly growing was due to a certain Simon Rattle, who sent him loads of recordings of people like Gardiner and Harnoncourt, and also was reading a lot of 'scholarship' HIP-stuff.
So: most certainly mr. Rattle was inspired by the HIP conventions. Listen to his performances of Mozart operas for instance, with non-period instruments.

About the impossibility of PI and blending with 'any others': Harnoncourt has been blending period instruments (brass: trumpets) with modern instruments for decades, so has f.i. Mackerras.
In what division should we put such an approach?
HIP, 3/4HIP, 1/5PI, semi-HIP?

Adding this, just in case: Koopman (who is NOT a scholar, btw) is giving concerts with Broadcast orchestras in the Netherlands (non-period instruments), with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (non-period instruments) and has been playing on non-historic organs for decades. Herreweghe is first conductor of the Royal Flemish Philharmonic Orchestra (non-period instruments), Frans Brüggen has been conducting non-period instrumental orchestras (also Broadcast & Radio orchestras in the Lower Countries) already for decades and decades. He's been given concerts with Janine Jansen (like Järvi jr.) on non-period instruments.
Harnoncourt has been mentioned. Gardiner has 'done' modern orchestras, mixed with 'authentic' brass.
Et cetera et cetera.

All those HIP-musicians are not that interested anymore in all those strict divisions. Then: why the [censored] should we?
If they prove only one thing, it would be: strict dividing is nonsense and totally out-of-date, no matter how knowledgeable Donald Satz may be.

My point is, that 'words' like HIP can be a tool to make something more clear, but if it's used to ruin a thread, or to think about insulting board members, then I truly regret the absence of the 'puke' emoticon here.

On the other hand: it's in fact very stupid of me that I even seem to want to join these discussions. I should have been wiser, I guess.

Excuse me for saying, but I'm just not that good in dividing. Especially if it leads to stupid quotes like freaking Colin Davis, or implicit remarks about the need to insult some so-called ignorant music lovers.
Again: no matter how knowledgeable Que or Gurn may be.

(And also: no offense and insult meant here. 0:))

[Renfield]

No matter what the title of this thread will be: Järvi is not HIP, Dausgaard is not HIP, and neither is Zinman. Nor is freaking Colin Davis, Arturo Toscanini or Daniel Barenboim.

Q

Having been reading the newer posts in this thread the past few days with some frustration, I have to whole-heartedly agree with this (freaking included). I am, it should be clear, no dedicated HIPster. But I would not describe, say, Immerseel, Brüggen and Norrington (EMI) in the same breath as Toscanini, Vänskä or even Harnoncourt (Teldec).

Though I agree it's more of a continuum than the Gurnian sort of approach might indicate (sorry Gurn! ), the fact that brightness is a continuum doesn't mean we can't distinguish black (or mostly black) from white (or mostly white).

Pure historically informed performance, let's call it HIP-HIP (hurrah?), has very specific musical and artistic objectives, which come first. 'Modern' performance, HIP-inspired, or whatnot utilises various techniques to take performance in general forward, it does not explore them for the sake of exploring them, as HIP-HIP does. I thus consider it fundamentally misguided to put both under one label.

(Unless that label is 'Beethoven cycles'.)

... so what we need is a new label. We need a new name to assign to this school of transparency-based, fleet-footed interpreters of the Beethoven nine. What is it?

No, we do not!

We have too many labels, and it is very unclear why the transparency-based performers of now should be labeled differently to the transparency-based performers of then (e.g. Toscanini, Karajan), simply because the present day performers express a more sophisticated stage of the same process. That feels like saying low definition video is not video.

In fact, while I'm at it, I really do wonder whether this contrast between the awesome, 'modern' style, and the plodding, horrible 'old style' isn't really a distinction between a good performance and (indeed) a bad one.

Even the slowest performances, e.g. Klemperer's, were possessed of forward-looking qualities, by virtue of which (whether you agree with the speed or not) these performances gained acclaim. Is there really a need to group 'all but the modern' under one label ('old style', big-band, whatever) in order to reject them, if the intended distinction (and rejection) is simply one of fast vs. slow?

Or 'big' sound' vs. 'small' sound?

It's not unlike saying I shouldn't talk too loud, and calling my 'kind of talking' the loud school, just to advocate talking softly.


My point being: why not just advocate a method, rather than imagining - and thus bringing into being - all sorts of binary tensions? Once, when I was even younger than I am now, I was hoping the degree to which Nietzsche has permeated modern culture would assist in dispelling all these arbitrary notions of everything being binary. You don't need to define everything against something else.

[Bulldog]

Rifkin is HIP, Herreweghe & Koopman are partly-abandoned HIP, and so is (perhaps) Harnoncourt (unless of course he conducts the Concentus Musicus Wien), and Zinman with his Tonhalle Band were former-modern but now HIP-related, and Barenboim is Big Band. (Or is he? )

There you have it: FOUR distinct categories!

No, wait: what about Simon Rattle and his Berlin Philharmonic when they play Beethoven? He must be somewhere in between Zinman and Barenboim? Because Rattle is HIP-inspired, but using larger forces than Zinman!

All right then, FIVE distinct categories!

This was a very interesting thread, and the thread is threatened to be ruined by one-way-thinking, and useless discussions about which way that one way should be.

In My Humble Opinion, that is.

My preference for using three categories does not threaten to ruin the thread; it simply adds a view that might be commented on or discussed.  And Marc, you did comment on it and came up with a larger group of categories.  That is your right, and I do realize that you might be kidding about the larger group.

Also, the one-way thinking you mentioned is way off base.  At no time did I indicate that all period instrument performances are essentially the same.  As we all know, there are dozens of variables within each category; it's just a matter of how much one wants to micro-manage the categories.  A plethora of categories might be good for the seasoned collector, but others would likely be very confused by all of them.

To me, the major problem with this thread is that we are using the same words but with different meanings.  That makes for less than sterling communication.  When a poster states that P. Jarvi is HIP and Gardiner is hybrid HIP, I know that we're not on the same page.

[DavidRoss]

I thought you hate Wagner.

That's because you read selectively, conditioned by preconception.  There are many things I admire about Wagner's music and even his "music dramas."  I am under no illusion, however, that they approach the heights of greatness claimed by his fanboys.

When I first appeared on forums like this several years ago, I was often attacked as a Mahler-hater, which I found rather amusing since Mahler has been one of my favorite composers since I first heard his music more than 40 years ago.  The reason?  I felt--and still feel--that his music suffers from long-windedness, and that he might have improved much of it substantially had he respected the blue pencil as much as he loved his creative muse.

[Marc]

My preference for using three categories does not threaten to ruin the thread; it simply adds a view that might be commented on or discussed.  And Marc, you did comment on it and came up with a larger group of categories.  That is your right, and I do realize that you might be kidding about the larger group.

Also, the one-way thinking you mentioned is way off base.  At no time did I indicate that all period instrument performances are essentially the same.  As we all know, there are dozens of variables within each category; it's just a matter of how much one wants to micro-manage the categories.  A plethora of categories might be good for the seasoned collector, but others would likely be very confused by all of them.

Understood. (And no offense meant, either.)

It has became a total mess, this HIP-related stuff, hasn't it?
But you can't blame board members for that.
Already in the eighties the Pope (declaired as such by others, btw) of HIP, mr. Harnoncourt, said many times things like authenticity does not exist at all and every period in art is romantic in its own way.
After that, loads of people already began to feel confused, I think. Way before our problems started here!

To me, the major problem with this thread is that we are using the same words but with different meanings. That makes for less than sterling communication. When a poster states that P. Jarvi is HIP and Gardiner is hybrid HIP, I know that we're not on the same page.

Sure, but to me this is not a real big problem.
You already mentioned in 2007 to the thread-starter that Zinman isn't considered to be HIP in everyone's book. So let's be realistic: this thread was already a problem in your book from the very start!
I'd say: in a thread like this it's completely normal that these issues appear. What I didn't like were the freaking and insulting quotes and thoughts. I admit though: I went a bit too bananas about that.

Funny thing nevertheless: music loving board members (and musicians) were being treated by moderators in almost the same way as a certain banned member did once, whose adagium seemed to be: if I feel that some fool is talking nonsense, then I have the right to insult him, just because he's a plain ignorant, and I am not.

So: if a conductor is mentioned as HIP in a HIP-related thread, and I know he's certainly not, than I can call him freakin' Colin.
And if a member thinks that Toscannini, Davis and Zinman are HIP or maybe pre-HIP, then I certainly may feel the need to insult him, because he's plain ignorant, and I'm not.

On a board like this, with very wise and knowledgeble people, with lesser wise (sometimes even ignorant) and/or interested laymen (AND women!) and with newbies and all other kinds of enthousiasts, I would say that at least the moderators might temper their voice a bit, when punishing and insulting is the case.

In another recent thread, the thread-starter wanted to know about Bach's keyboard partitas played on a piano. Now the harpsichord has been allowed, too. Richter, Leonhardt and Rousset have been mentioned and discussed. And I haven't seen any problems occur in that particular thread yet, apart from some hearing problems with and between one or two members.

[Bulldog]

Adding this, just in case: Koopman (who is NOT a scholar, btw) is giving concerts with Broadcast orchestras in the Netherlands (non-period instruments), with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (non-period instruments) and has been playing on non-historic organs for decades. Herreweghe is first conductor of the Royal Flemish Philharmonic Orchestra (non-period instruments), Frans Brüggen has been conducting non-period instrumental orchestras (also Broadcast & Radio orchestras in the Lower Countries) already for decades and decades. He's been given concerts with Janine Jansen (like Järvi jr.) on non-period instruments.
Harnoncourt has been mentioned. Gardiner has 'done' modern orchestras, mixed with 'authentic' brass.
Et cetera et cetera.

All those HIP-musicians are not that interested anymore in all those strict divisions. Then: why the [censored] should we?
If they prove only one thing, it would be: strict dividing is nonsense and totally out-of-date, no matter how knowledgeable Donald Satz may be.

You seem to have some axe to grind.  I don't feel I'm into any strict division, just three broad categories that well serve my purposes for indentification.

As for the fact that many conductors primarily known for their period instrument performances also perform with modern instrument orchestras, so what?  The fact remains that period instruments have a very different sound than their modern counterparts.  That's why so many folks want nothing to do with, say, baroque orchestral music on modern instruments while many others can't stand the sound of period instruments.

Concerning the knowledge factor, I do not consider myself more or less knowledgeable than most others on the board.  I have not advocated such a position nor have I advocated the notion that my musical preferences are superior.  What I have been advocating is that we use terminology that is easily understood by most board members. 

[Renfield]

Marc,

I think you are making too much of Gurn and Que expressing their exasperation; their fully understandable exasperation, may I add.

Having a thread made about something, then talking about something else, then insisting that this was the topic all along, is an interesting situation to say the least. I can't blame them. It's all rather Orwellian.

Additionally, I think the 'freaking' bit was intended to indicate there is an obvious difference between Colin Davis and Franz Brüggen's styles, that's more than just about fast or slow, or lean, or medium-rare: a difference surreally ignored.

Assuming being PC is not an absolute directive, I think 'nor is freaking Colin Davis' was quite pithy.

[Bulldog]

Understood. (And no offense meant, either.)

It has became a total mess, this HIP-related stuff, hasn't it?

So: if a conductor is mentioned as HIP in a HIP-related thread, and I know he's certainly not, than I can call him freakin' Colin.
And if a member thinks that Toscannini, Davis and Zinman are HIP or maybe pre-HIP, then I certainly may feel the need to insult him, because he's plain ignorant, and I'm not.

Yes, it has become a mess, but I've tried to keep current.  Once upon a time, I always referrred to period instrument performances as HIP.  However, with the advent of modern instrument performances employing some of the HIP principles, I thought it best to convert to "period instrument performances".

FWIW, Colin Davis is one of my favorite conductors, and I love Bohm's Mozart.  I'm not as rigid as you might think.

[Que]

Funny thing nevertheless: music loving board members (and musicians) were being treated by moderators in almost the same way as a certain banned member did once, whose adagium seemed to be: if I feel that some fool is talking nonsense, then I have the right to insult him, just because he's a plain ignorant, and I am not.

So: if a conductor is mentioned as HIP in a HIP-related thread, and I know he's certainly not, than I can call him freakin' Colin.
And if a member thinks that Toscannini, Davis and Zinman are HIP or maybe pre-HIP, then I certainly may feel the need to insult him, because he's plain ignorant, and I'm not.

On a board like this, with very wise and knowledgeble people, with lesser wise (sometimes even ignorant) and/or interested laymen (AND women!) and with newbies and all other kinds of enthousiasts, I would say that at least the moderators might temper their voice a bit, when punishing and insulting is the case.

Oh, come on.  Marc, my friend, let's not get carried away here. 
I did not insult any board members and I did not call Colin Davis "freaking" just because he was mentioned here by someone, but because I do not like him as a conductor.

Other than that I think everyone is very smart here!  Because we all know very well what we are talking about and what was the intended scope of this thread. HIP is defined by what it stands for, the rest is all chit-chat and playing an eleborate semantics game.

Q

[Franco]

Having a thread made about something, then talking about something else, then insisting that this was the topic all along, is an interesting situation to say the least. I can't blame them. It's all rather Orwellian.

A week or so ago I posted about the P. Jarvi cycle in this thread, prefacing it with a caveat something like, I don't know if Jarvi is considered HIP - but the reason I posted about his set here was because I cound find no Beethoven symphony set thread other than this one.

I asked if there was one but no one pointed me to it, if it exists.

[Scarpia]

Concerning the knowledge factor, I do not consider myself more or less knowledgeable than most others on the board.  I have not advocated such a position nor have I advocated the notion that my musical preferences are superior.  What I have been advocating is that we use terminology that is easily understood by most board members.

Quite so.  When I stumble upon one of the pseudo-profound discussions on this board that go on for page after page after page ("is there such a thing as absolute music, etc") it usually strikes me that the only substantial issue is that people don't agree on the definition of the words they are using.

[DavidW]

Perhaps the thread could be split into PI and modern instrument recordings and leave it at that.  A simple dichotomy that is not too confusing.  Just check if the recordings are on period instruments, and then post accordingly.  Seems simple enough.

[Marc]

Marc,
I think you are making too much of Gurn and Que expressing their exasperation; their fully understandable exasperation, may I add.

If a moderator is saying that he felt the need to insult board members, he might be scaring people away from his own forum. In the end though, I admit, that's should not be a problem to me.
And yes, I did went a bit too bananas about it (nasty memories, I guess).

About Que: I totally understood his point, and I agree with his points many times, and I prefer 'HIP' (sigh) too, but I didn't like the way he put it. I believe that it would have helped if he tried to explain the differences in a more relaxed way. Like Don did, actually (even though I did not entirely agree with him, either).
Let's just say: c'est le ton qui fait la musique, or something like that. Especially if moderators are concerned, IMO.

Then again: I should have been more relaxed, too. My 'ton' wasn't all that beautiful, either.
Apologies for that.

Having a thread made about something, then talking about something else, then insisting that this was the topic all along, is an interesting situation to say the least. I can't blame them. It's all rather Orwellian.

Not entirely. Check out the first post by the thread starter. Indeed non-HIPers were part of the topic all along.

Additionally, I think the 'freaking' bit was intended to indicate there is an obvious difference between Colin Davis and Franz Brüggen's styles, that's more than just about fast or slow, or lean, or medium-rare: a difference surreally ignored.

Sure, I would never 'categorize' Davis and Brüggen in the same group.
Having said that, it depends of course of the nature of the categories. In the end, when Beethoven is concerned, I would say that Davis is interesting and Brüggen is essential.
HIP or not HIP.