Beethoven Symphonies HIP

[Bulldog]

I do not go along with this reason that seems to have become all the fashion here. The "I" in HIP does not stand for "inspired". Taking along a few ideas here and there, mainly about balance within the orchestra and transparency by reducing its size, in order to achieve an actual very new, modern ideal of articulation and transparency in orchestral playing does not make a performance HIP. Be it that that ideal has been developed under the influence of the HIP movement as it may!

And there lies the big difference between these two movements: all these "modernity" conductors do not aim for a historically accurate performance. They just use some techniques to achieve their own musical ideals. As for the issue of the instruments: truly a non-discussion as far as I'm concerned. In order to achieve historically accurate playing style & and techniques AND historically accurate instrumental sound, one needs historically accurate instruments, whether original or newly produced copies, PERIOD.

So the whole "lean & mean" category, so popular now but already dating back to Erich Kleiber is not HIP.

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

Right on!  I've been very surprised at the recent trend to call modern instrument performances HIP because they employ some HIP peformance elements.  One of the basic aspects of HIP is the use of period instruments which create a very different sound world than their modern counterparts.  So, if there aren't period instruments, it ain't HIP.

[DavidW]

I have never, ever, ever heard another interpreter of 'Eroica' who makes the first variation of the theme (or the -2th, depending on what theme you have in mind) into a chamber music work for solo violinists, violist and cellist. A really striking effect, whether it's authentic or not (I genuinely don't know).

Yeah that was one of those jaw dropping moments for both shock and then awe, it completely works.

Setting aside that last bit (Barenboim is the antithesis of Dausgaard/Järvi), ... 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?

I like classicist, since I've seen many times that label given to Toscanini, and he was one of the first (at least in recordings) of that school, an inspiration for many after him.

[Clever Hans]

Something worth considering is that the period instrument cycles so far may not really effect that much more of a historically accurate sound/context (in this sense of historically informed) than some of the other cycles which use modern instruments, but with similarly scaled down orchestras, etc.

For example, the Gardiner cycle, as has been pointed out, seems to many to have a very modern sound merely with period instruments. The tempos are basically right, but what about everything else? Beautiful singing in the 9th, but as a whole it's perhaps too straightforward and polished. Harnoncourt is much more flexible and uses the metronome markings as an authoritative starting point, as stated in the Teldec booklet. I think he actually offers more HIP insights than Gardiner does beyond those already gained by the previous Norrington (who closely adheres to the metronome markings), and Hogwood (who often deviates from the metronome markings, but has a nice curve in orchestra variety and an engagingly imperfect sound).

The Immerseel set has other HIP issues apparently, although I am not exactly qualified to confirm or deny the validity of what I am about to cite. Clive Brown, in Early Music vol 36, 4 (2008), "A New Beethoven Cycle," talks about the shortcomings of Immerseel's cycle from a HIP standpoint. To summarize:

In the 9th, the balance of the choir divided on either side of the orchestra produces a sound that is not authentic, as it would probably have been placed in front of the orchestra in Beethoven's Vienna. Brown also maintains that the singers still use too much vibrato (though less than on some other recordings) and no portamento, which isn't accurate. The issue of portamento in strings is more complicated, and concerns early 19th century taste arguments as well as trends.

In any case, Brown contests that the string players don't actually take much from Spohr's Violinschule bowing style, contradicting Immerseel's implication regarding Spohr in the notes. Moreover, there are other general issues in staccato mark notation, as they may have indicated slur and separation, but not detached notes, as we understand staccato today.   

Finally, Brown observes the lack of tempo rubato and textual modification in Immerseel's and other period performances. Evidence suggests this manner may not be accurate. He gives some examples.

In the penultimate paragraph, he says: "Despite their musicianly qualities, which will undoubtedly delight many listeners, they remain firmly rooted in a post-20th-century aesthetic. If the knowledge we now possess about 19th-century performing practice were applied to Beethoven's music in a spirit of uninhibited experiment, it would result in style of performance that is radically different from anything we are familiar with in the present day."

I highly recommend this article in its entirety, if you have access to Oxford Journals.

Okay, so, here's my position, for what it's worth.
-I am a big fan of period instruments, exclusively in Bach (except a few piano recordings), and if possible in Haydn and Mozart. Nevertheless, I think Beethoven can work very well with both period instruments and modern instruments.
-I usually prefer Beethoven symphonies played at least in HIP style, at the proper tempos with a chamber orchestra.
-My impression, however, is that the period instrument recordings currently available are not that much more historically informed than the hybrid recordings which use modern instruments. As a result, I don't stress too much about the question of period instruments.   
-Regardless, I will listen to the sets I find most visionary and best at achieving something of whatever is communicated in the score--as far as I can ascertain. I look forward to period instrument recordings that further enrich the possibilities of orchestration, timbres, and playing styles.
   

[Sergeant Rock]

[Paavo Järvi's]not always a fast conductor, when I heard his Tchaikovsky (years ago) on tv, he was slower than usual for that symphony.

His recording of Kullervo is one of the slowest too. Interesting that Papa Järvi's is one of the swiftest.

Sarge

[DavidW]

His recording of Kullervo is one of the slowest too. Interesting that Papa Järvi's is one of the swiftest.

Sarge

Aha!  That makes me wonder if he's a true HIPster like Harnoncourt, trying to figure the appropriate style for the era.  Late romanticism and early modernism were commonly played slowly, heavily with emphasis on melody and making great use of portamento and rubato.  Beethoven certainly shouldn't be played that way, but Tchaikovsky and Sibelius would benefit from such performances.  The youtube that was posted on that other thread had Jarvi explaining where he was coming from with Beethoven, and veering away from the lush hollywood sound really got me curious.  Just when I have him pegged!

[Marc]

Right on!  I've been very surprised at the recent trend to call modern instrument performances HIP because they employ some HIP peformance elements.  One of the basic aspects of HIP is the use of period instruments which create a very different sound world than their modern counterparts.  So, if there aren't period instruments, it ain't HIP.

Well, I don't blame myself, as an enthousiastic listener and layman, that I sometimes 'abuse' the 'word' HIP.
Problem is, that f.i. Harnoncourt, Herreweghe and Gardiner are fine examples of 'true HIP', but are also known for trying to incorporate their HIP-ideas into the other 'conservative' world of modern instruments. Also Ton Koopman and Jos van Veldhoven have conducted Bach with orchestras like the Concertgebouw. In those cases, I sometimes try to use the word 'semi-HIP'. The conductors or leaders are HIP, and the instruments are not.

(Mind you, I once read in an interview that Herreweghe stated that in his opinion the Matthäus-Passion is better suited for modern than for authentic instruments!! Can this guy still be considered HIP?)

And what about people like Zinman and Mackerras? At a certain point in their career they somehow decided that HIP was right, and then decided to incorporate those HIP-ideas into their own 'conservative' world of modern instruments.
Are they semi-HIP? HIP-influenced? Or even HIP, but only really HIP if they perform with HIP instruments?

My own opinion about this all: I hate categorial thinking.
Even though I myself use those categories to make some of my postings more clear to the readers. But in the end, my opinion will always be: categorial thinking (HIP/not-HIP, black/white, good/bad) is just a distorted view at world, mankind and their behaviour, their tools & their instruments.

All of this blabbering being just my tuppence worth, of course.

[Gurn Blanston]

I do not go along with this reason that seems to have become all the fashion here. The "I" in HIP does not stand for "inspired". Taking along a few ideas here and there, mainly about balance within the orchestra and transparency by reducing its size, in order to achieve an actual very new, modern ideal of articulation and transparency in orchestral playing does not make a performance HIP. Be it that that ideal has been developed under the influence of the HIP movement as it may!

And there lies the big difference between these two movements: all these "modernity" conductors do not aim for a historically accurate performance. They just use some techniques to achieve their own musical ideals. As for the issue of the instruments: truly a non-discussion as far as I'm concerned. In order to achieve historically accurate playing style & and techniques AND historically accurate instrumental sound, one needs historically accurate instruments, whether original or newly produced copies, PERIOD.

So the whole "lean & mean" category, so popular now but already dating back to Erich Kleiber is not HIP.

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

Thank you, Que. I wanted to say all that but I hadn't figured out a way to avoid seriously insulting people who need to be seriously insulted, but it isn't my place to do it. You seem to have worked that out.

The philosophy seems to be "well, we can't be better than PI, so we should simply adopt them  and then they become us". Something I see political parties do on a regular basis, I might add.

[Franco]

After recently listening to the Jaavi 4th and 7th and the Dausgaard 4th and 5th, I can say that despite any label people feel compelled to put on these recordings, they are very good indeed - IMHO.

[DavidW]

To make it more confusing Bremen has been led by HIP conductors, they play with minimal vibrato.  It seems as if they do everything but change the instruments.

The thing is that black and white distinctions can not be made anymore (as Marc illustrated exceedingly well).  This is because the two types of music playing (modern and period style) are blending and merging.  At the end of the day there will not be two camps, but one overall style of music playing and a spectrum from conservative to period style.  Now we might even already be there, but I have feeling that we're half way there.

[jlaurson]

To make it more confusing Bremen has been led by HIP conductors, they play with minimal vibrato.  It seems as if they do everything but change the instruments.

This whole discussion is purely semantic. HIP is Historically Informed Performance. "Informed" could mean anything. Like sniffing the metronome Beethoven used, mentioning it in an interview, then ignoring it, anyway.

If we want to use a term that can't be meant to include just about anything, perhaps "Period Performance" -- I recommend the abbreviation: "Per'd-Perf" or maybe just "PePe" -- would be more suitable. Which means: instruments / bows and bowing technique from the period of the work; approximation of historical style. And then concerts get played in a modern concert hall, anyway, with people sitting in chairs, all quiet, and afraid to clap when they like it. The whole thing is a farce because we ever only focus on one, or two, or three aspects of what a true period performance would actually mean... when there are in fact hundreds of aspects that would need to be considered. All PP performances are also 'only' HIP... and the boundaries are pretty blurry. Thankfully--because ideology has never made for good music.

[Marc]

Thank you, Que. I wanted to say all that but I hadn't figured out a way to avoid seriously insulting people who need to be seriously insulted, but it isn't my place to do it. You seem to have worked that out.

The philosophy seems to be "well, we can't be better than PI, so we should simply adopt them and then they become us". Something I see political parties do on a regular basis, I might add.

Some might say: those political parties have very smart and bright representatives.

Sure, this thread isn't really 'Beethoven HIP-and-only-HIP' anymore.
I've seen it happen with lots of threads and discussions, here and elsewhere.
If a person starts a thread called Mozart HIP one can only wait for the first reaction like "why just HIP? Non-HIP is much better!" It also happens the other way 'round.
Sometimes it leads to a riot, sometimes it leads to interesting discussions, but in most cases it leads to nothing. (And that's what boards like this are for. )
In most cases, HIP-lovers will remain HIP-lovers, and HIP-haters will remain HIP-haters. It's not considered to be truly energetic and bold to consider other possibilities or options.
But I dare (?) say: let's mingle! Let's blend those sopranos, altos, tenors and basses! Let's mix all those instruments and ideas and make music!
Harnoncourt does it, Herreweghe does it, Mackerras does it! Who the [censored] cares how their approach is called, HIP, WIP or RIP, if the final results are effective?

Or should I, with my weak not-so-firm-and-strongly-in-favour-of-HIP-spine, leave this thread and join a political party?

[Sergeant Rock]

Thank you, Que. I wanted to say all that but I hadn't figured out a way to avoid seriously insulting people who need to be seriously insulted

Why does anyone need to be insulted??? This debate has been going on since the beginning of the thread (July 2007) with "semi-HIP" cycles mentioned immediately and Hector saying on the first page:

Nor does Harnoncourt [use period instruments] but, strictly speaking, both are "Historically informed" although some would view this term as meaning "performed on period instruments."

I'm with David Ross. I love the way this topic has evolved. If we'd banned cycles that don't meet the strict criteria of the forum's HIP police, this thread would have died years ago. As it is, it's become one of the liveliest and most interesting.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

"Per'd-Perf" or maybe just "PePe"

Sarge

[Marc]

Why does anyone need to be insulted??? This debate has been going on since the beginning of the thread (July 2007) with "semi-HIP" cycles mentioned immediately [....]

No surprise here: I'm with you, Sarge!

[Marc]

[....]Thankfully--because ideology has never made for good music.

With this, I do not entirely agree.
Ideology in music has in the end to be performed by living people. And they are simply not able to perform strictly by ideologic rules, because each and every person has their own personality which influences their performance (if only slightly). It's already a very special and gifted thing when all those different personalities are able to perform in unison.

I'd say: the combination of strict ideology and a mix of humans to interpret and perform that in a personal way can make for a terrific musical performance!
If you want some proof of that: check this thread (and of course the recordings that were recommended)!

[jlaurson]

With this, I do not entirely agree...
I'd say: the combination of strict ideology and a mix of humans to interpret and perform that in a personal way can make for a terrific musical performance!

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

[Florestan]

And then concerts get played in a modern concert hall, anyway, with people sitting in chairs, all quiet, and afraid to clap when they like it. The whole thing is a farce because we ever only focus on one, or two, or three aspects of what a true period performance would actually mean... when there are in fact hundreds of aspects that would need to be considered.

Thanks for expressing my thoughts exactly. And I would add that the most important aspect is forever lost on us; we may listen to "Eroica" played with period instruments and period performance pratice as much as we want --- what we are conspicuously missing is period mindset.

I personally am neither pro-HIP nor anti-HIP. In this respect I'm a complete anarchist: if it sounds good, I don't care what it is.

[Bulldog]

To make it more confusing Bremen has been led by HIP conductors, they play with minimal vibrato.  It seems as if they do everything but change the instruments.

The thing is that black and white distinctions can not be made anymore (as Marc illustrated exceedingly well).  This is because the two types of music playing (modern and period style) are blending and merging.  At the end of the day there will not be two camps, but one overall style of music playing and a spectrum from conservative to period style.  Now we might even already be there, but I have feeling that we're half way there.

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.

[DarkAngel]

Why does anyone need to be insulted??? This debate has been going on since the beginning of the thread (July 2007) with "semi-HIP" cycles mentioned immediately and Hector saying on the first page:

I'm with David Ross. I love the way this topic has evolved. If we'd banned cycles that don't meet the strict criteria of the forum's HIP police, this thread would have died years ago. As it is, it's become one of the liveliest and most interesting.

Sarge

Yes I don't see any value in trying to impose a strict narrow interpretation of the term Historically Informed Performance or HIP on the forum.........."informed" is a general and inclusive word and does not imply any strict degree of accuracy or narrow focus only that there is prior knowledge or influence.

If someone specifically only wants to discuss original instrument performances it is easy enough to state that in original post

[Franco]

Thanks for expressing my thoughts exactly. And I would add that the most important aspect is forever lost on us; we may listen to "Eroica" played with period instruments and period performance pratice as much as we want --- what we are conspicuously missing is period mindset.

I personally am neither pro-HIP nor anti-HIP. In this respect I'm a complete anarchist: if it sounds good, I don't care what it is.

First of all, I am in total agreement with your last sentence.

Second, related to what you call a "period mindset", I looked at an interview with Jarvi regarding his recent Beethoven cycyle and he said something that made a lot of sense to me: his goal was to perform the symphonies as if he had not heard Brahms, Mahler, or any of the music that came after Beethoven. 

That comment alone got me interested in hearing his interpretations, although I'm not sure how one does that.