Mozart in Period Performances (HIP)

[Scarpia]

One of the main knocks against 'HIP' has been, since the first, that it suffered from literal interpretation of the score, metronomic application of tempos, no note that wasn't written down etc.. Of course, anyone who has followed the PI movement with more than passing interest knows that this stereotype disappeared 15 or more years ago, but never mind that, we can perpetuate it anyway.

Actually, Harnoncourt, one of the originators of the HIP movement, always expounded his view that in early music the score was considered an outline rather than a definition of the performance and that the performer was expected to embellish according to custom.  The rigid, "sewing machine" school came from the imitators like Pinnock, and I tend to agree with those who label him as "unmusical."

[Gurn Blanston]

Actually, Harnoncourt, one of the originators of the HIP movement, always expounded his view that in early music the score was considered an outline rather than a definition of the performance and that the performer was expected to embellish according to custom.  The rigid, "sewing machine" school came from the imitators like Pinnock, and I tend to agree with those who label him as "unmusical."

Well, I'm not saying that the performances were done that way, I'm merely reporting back what I have read ad infinitum. Pinnock is an excellent harpsichordist.  But I have Jacobs' Mozart symphonies disks, and also "...Figaro" and "Cosi fan tutte", and I find his flexibility in dynamics both interesting and artful.

I am not pleading any cause here when I say that if you had been alive in 1790 and traveling around Europe listening to music (although not many people were doing that other than Burney), I fully expect that if you happened to hear the same Mozart (or any other) symphony in 2 different cities, that you would have found most major elements of tempo and dynamics done differently enough for you to easily notice it. If you made the same trip in 1960, I strongly suspect that this would not be true. If a performance is only acceptable when it fits into someone's (OK, Hurwitz's) preconception of how it should sound, then why in hell even bother to listen to it? Just put on that old Furtwängler CD and kick back...

That's what I'm on about.

[DavidW]

There are some memorable sonic effects in the 38 == an astonishing trumpet blast in the opening adagio which sounds just like the last judgement. And some memorable dynamic contrasts:  at one point the music sounds like an echo. It's a romp. Haydnfan says the 39 is not an "absurd mad dash"; will the 38 primo  comes close,  IMO.

Yeah I think that the 38+41 disc does feature some swift playing, I do think he takes the 39 and 40 at a slower pace (which aggravated Hurwitz) but honestly they are weighty symphonies and shouldn't be played at lightning speed.  That being said many of the MI recordings I've heard are slower, so Jacobs is not exactly playing at Bohm or DG Bernstein speed, he's just not whipping through the 39th or 40th with typical PI zeal.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks for replying about Jacob's authenticity -- I think I am starting to understand.

I got the CD with 39 today. I know the CD with 38 and 41. I can certainly hear some dynamic shading in  38 which I don't hear in other performances.

There are some memorable sonic effects in the 38 == an astonishing trumpet blast in the opening adagio which sounds just like the last judgement. And some memorable dynamic contrasts:  at one point the music sounds like an echo. It's a romp. Haydnfan says the 39 is not an "absurd mad dash"; will the 38 primo  comes close,  IMO.

On the emotional level, his Prague seems pretty shallow to me. Nuanced dynamically, yes. Nuanced emotionally, no. Compared with Harnoncourt's on the Bartolli DVD, Jacobs is shallow. And that's just thinking HIP. If not, there's Klemperer's and Maag's too.

I'll listen to the 39 and 40 tomorrow if I get time.

Well, I'm no authority (nor claim to be), I am just very open-minded about performance and I like it when not every performance sounds the same. We shouldn't have to look for where the 3rd horn slipped a lip in order to have something different going on.

If 38 seems like a mad dash, then let me ask you a question. If, when it was written, that was the tempo it was played at (not saying it was, just hypothesizing), and then later on it was slowed down, maybe because there were now 3 or 4 times more musicians in the band, and that is the way that you first heard it, then even though the first way sounds like a mad dash to you, does that make it less right?  Isn't it more a question of accepting a performance on its own merit than it is to validate it by how closely it conforms to what we are used to?  I think this is a legitimate question to ask ourselves when confronted with a performance that is outside the norm. Clearly Hurwitz can't do it. But that is far more a failing on his part than it is on Jacobs and the FBO.

[Scarpia]

Well, I'm not saying that the performances were done that way, I'm merely reporting back what I have read ad infinitum. Pinnock is an excellent harpsichordist.  But I have Jacobs' Mozart symphonies disks, and also "...Figaro" and "Cosi fan tutte", and I find his flexibility in dynamics both interesting and artful.

I am not pleading any cause here when I say that if you had been alive in 1790 and traveling around Europe listening to music (although not many people were doing that other than Burney), I fully expect that if you happened to hear the same Mozart (or any other) symphony in 2 different cities, that you would have found most major elements of tempo and dynamics done differently enough for you to easily notice it. If you made the same trip in 1960, I strongly suspect that this would not be true. If a performance is only acceptable when it fits into someone's (OK, Hurwitz's) preconception of how it should sound, then why in hell even bother to listen to it? Just put on that old Furtwängler CD and kick back...

That's what I'm on about.

When you said above that the stereotype died out 15 years ago that seemed to imply that the rigid style of HIP playing itself died out (i.e., Pinnock).  It seems hard to interpret your remark as meaning that the stereotype itself died out since, as you said subsequently, the stereotype is still with us. 

[Gurn Blanston]

When you said above that the stereotype died out 15 years ago that seemed to imply that the rigid style of HIP playing itself died out (i.e., Pinnock).  It seems hard to interpret your remark as meaning that the stereotype itself died out since, as you said subsequently, the stereotype is still with us.

Well, to be clear, what I am saying is that the rigid playing is essentially gone, but the idea of it lingers on. I can't really speak much to Pinnock specifically, because I can't remember anything in my library by him that is recent. Maybe some Vivaldi? But there are plenty of others out there, like Minkowski and Jacobs, and one can't honestly say that they are 'metronomic' at all. Still hear the canard though...

[Mandryka]

Well, I'm no authority (nor claim to be), I am just very open-minded about performance and I like it when not every performance sounds the same. We shouldn't have to look for where the 3rd horn slipped a lip in order to have something different going on.

If 38 seems like a mad dash, then let me ask you a question. If, when it was written, that was the tempo it was played at (not saying it was, just hypothesizing), and then later on it was slowed down, maybe because there were now 3 or 4 times more musicians in the band, and that is the way that you first heard it, then even though the first way sounds like a mad dash to you, does that make it less right?  Isn't it more a question of accepting a performance on its own merit than it is to validate it by how closely it conforms to what we are used to?  I think this is a legitimate question to ask ourselves when confronted with a performance that is outside the norm. Clearly Hurwitz can't do it. But that is far more a failing on his part than it is on Jacobs and the FBO.

I don't mind the fact that it's fast at all. In fact I rather like fast performances. My real criticism is that it's expressively limited compared with other readings (Harnoncourt's DVD for example)

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

A question for you HIPsters. If I wanted to hear late Mozart symphonies with the clarity and zip of HIP combined with the drama and punch of the traditional approach, what recording(s) would you suggest?

[Opus106]

A question for you HIPsters. If I wanted to hear late Mozart symphonies with the clarity and zip of HIP combined with the drama and punch of the traditional approach, what recording(s) would you suggest?

Either one by Mackerras, perhaps? The Telarc (as opposed to the Linn) ones have harpsichords in place for even the later symphonies. And the Telarc has a LOT of repeats.

[Gurn Blanston]

A question for you HIPsters. If I wanted to hear late Mozart symphonies with the clarity and zip of HIP combined with the drama and punch of the traditional approach, what recording(s) would you suggest?

Give me a little while to mull that one, Walter. Maybe someone else has an idea right off the top of their head, but for the moment I don't.  To some extent, Romantic drama and Classical expression are a bit antithetical, so a great, recommendable blend of them is going to be a rare animal.    Have you ever listened to the Mackerras/Prague cycle? It is highly recommendable, and possibly just for the elements you seem to seek.

[asin]B001FWRYVA[/asin]

Mackerras is no Böhm, but in this case, that's a good thing.

[Gurn Blanston]

Either one by Mackerras, perhaps? The Telarc (as opposed to the Linn) ones have harpsichords in place for even the later symphonies. And the Telarc has a LOT of repeats.

Great minds, Navneeth...  0:)

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

  Have you ever listened to the Mackerras/Prague cycle? It is highly recommendable, and possibly just for the elements you seem to seek.

Gurn, I haven't, but the thought of harpsichords in late WAM and all repeats rigorously observed does not exactly appeal to me...how about the Linn recordings?

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't mind the fact that it's fast at all. In fact I rather like fast performances. My real criticism is that it's expressively limited compared with other readings (Harnoncourt's DVD for example)

OK, well I guess that is an aspect that I probably don't look for. I am trying to understand that, so bear with me please. Do you mean it is lacking in dramatic impact? I can tell you that no period performance is going to have the drama of a post-Romantic style of performance because that is exactly the layered on, after-market (so to speak) accessory that period performance developed to try to shed off. These works were not steeped in Romantic drama at their conception. The fact that they acquired it during the 2 centuries following, and many people love them that way, does not make them Romantic in any case. I'm not being at all judgmental here, one likes what one likes and no apologies required. But I think that if you approach period performance with the expectation that it will satisfy that particular aspect of your preferences, then you are doomed to failure since it is expressly trying not to!   

Or maybe you mean something else altogether and I am off-base.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, I haven't, but the thought of harpsichords in late WAM and all repeats rigorously observed does not exactly appeal to me...how about the Linn recordings?

Well, just as an aside, I have listened to those disks 30 or 40 times and the fact that they had harpsichord continuo was news to me. Just sayin'...

The Linn recordings are more controversial for some reason. I have read diverse reactions here about them. I like them, FWIW, but not sure the Scots have quite the punch or the natural feeling for the works that the Czechs have. If you can listen to a sample of those Prague works, you can hear the quality of the ensemble. It is consistent throughout. Also, the disks are sold separately....

[Antoine Marchand]

... To some extent, Romantic drama and Classical expression are a bit antithetical, so a great, recommendable blend of them is going to be a rare animal.    Have you ever listened to the Mackerras/Prague cycle? It is highly recommendable, and possibly just for the elements you seem to seek.

It's an improbable animal, indeed. Maybe Jeanette Sorrell and her Apollo's Fire?

[asin]http://B003KK7MHG[/asin]

Just a handful of Mozart, but very interesting and exciting:

http://www.apollosfire.org/cds/cds.html

[DavidW]

A question for you HIPsters. If I wanted to hear late Mozart symphonies with the clarity and zip of HIP combined with the drama and punch of the traditional approach, what recording(s) would you suggest?

I reject the assumption that only the traditional approach has drama and only the HIP approach offers clarity.  Try Szell anyway.

[karlhenning]

Yes, the BSO is hardly a HIP outfit, but they have delivered perfectly clear Haydn and Mozart to my recent-ish hearing.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I reject the assumption that only the traditional approach has drama and only the HIP approach offers clarity.

So do I - which is why I asked 

Try Szell anyway.

Maybe I should. I love the old Bruno Walter recordings, but they're not the only way to go.

[Mandryka]

A question for you HIPsters. If I wanted to hear late Mozart symphonies with the clarity and zip of HIP combined with the drama and punch of the traditional approach, what recording(s) would you suggest?

Well, you could start with Harnoncourt's DVD 38; Harnoncourt's 40;  Brueggen's Linz symphony; Brueggen's Two Orchestras Jupiter ; Minkowski's 41; the new live 41 from Gardiner. I also like Kocsis in 40 very much -- but maybe not HIP enough for what you're looking for.

I need to think about 39 more! This is a symphony which is dominated by nonHIP for me -- Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw and Furtwangler  -- there must be good HIP ones though.

I don't understand this Szell love in -- I listened to his Jupiter a few weeks ago and I thought it was colourless and cold. Compared with Klemperer's beautiful mono 41 on Testament and the HIPs I mentioned above Szell doesn't stand a chance in my opinion.

I'm also not so crazy about Mackerras -- though there are some nice things on the Prague set (like 38) and there are some nice things from the earlier symphonies on the Scottish one. He developed a pretty cold style towards his later years in my opinion -- I remember some very dry concerts in London (a particularly excruciating Fidelio and some very poor Brahms). Those Linn recordings just bear out my judgement about the lives.

Having said that, on the Linn there is a superb 29.

Thanks for the reply Gurn -- give a day or so to respond

[Mandryka]

OK, well I guess that is an aspect that I probably don't look for. I am trying to understand that, so bear with me please. Do you mean it is lacking in dramatic impact? I can tell you that no period performance is going to have the drama of a post-Romantic style of performance because that is exactly the layered on, after-market (so to speak) accessory that period performance developed to try to shed off. These works were not steeped in Romantic drama at their conception. The fact that they acquired it during the 2 centuries following, and many people love them that way, does not make them Romantic in any case. I'm not being at all judgmental here, one likes what one likes and no apologies required. But I think that if you approach period performance with the expectation that it will satisfy that particular aspect of your preferences, then you are doomed to failure since it is expressly trying not to!   

Or maybe you mean something else altogether and I am off-base.

Part of the problem I'm having in responding is that I don't understand classical style.

Tell me Gurn,  what do you think of Harnoncourt's DVD of the Prague Symphony? Is that authentic classical style or does it have the drama layered on?

Let me give you an example. At around 10min 30 secs into the first movement there is a very dramatic and turbulent passage -- full of angst. And then the music suddenly becomes sadder, more introspective, less outwardly agitated, for a short time.

Harnoncourt brings out the drama -- the turbulence -- of that moment like no one else I know. Not even Otto Klemperer or Peter Maag are quite so dramatic at that point. There are plenty of other moments I could cite in that first movement. There is for instance a passage which lasts for a few seconds which is full of sadness, unbearable sadness, at about 15min 26.

Is this variety of emotion, this changing dramatic, affective landscape, an "after-market (so to speak) accessory"?I always thought that Harnoncourt was sympathetic to historical performance.

You may not have the recording. I can always upload it on to goear if you want to hear it.