Cortot's strong Anti-HIP position.

[Mandryka]

This is Cortot's view of music, as described in his article "Attiude de l'interprète", La revue internationale de musique, April 1939, pp 885-888. I thought it was an unusually forthright statement of a certain conception of what it is perform an old score.

The codes of musical interpretation change from one
stylistic era to the next, and each generation of
virtuosi has unconsciously worked to mould the expressive
forms of earlier music to the particular sensibility of
his time.

It is this fruitful anachronism which enables us to
perceive, at the core of outdated structures, a message
of eternal significance, and to imbue them with an
irresistible tone of freshness and sincerity.
Magnificent coexistence of past and present under the
auspicious sign of the masterwork.
These sonorities which come down to us through the
ages, attesting to the permanence of human emotions: they
do not merely confirm that [a great composition]
preserves its indestructible identity through all the
artistic evolutions that have swept it up in their
current. Close contact with such masterworks also leads
the artist who presumes to inquire deeply into them and
interpret them to come to know himself, through them.
In the image of feelings familiar to him, he restores the
radiance of a beauty which to outward appearances may
seem to have been faded by time. Only thus, by opposing
the vibrant reactions of his own personality to the
surreptitious threat of a nonchalant admiration, can the
interpreter worthy of that name protect a musical work
from slow depreciation .... [This entails taking] bold liberties [with the music],
granted; ... and at times it may give rise to some debatable excesses. But it is the only way to save the
daring stylistic or formal innovations... [of bygone eras] from irremedial devaluation.

We should be wary of regarding as improprieties--as
certain pedagogues devoid of imagination are wont to do--
the liberties by which a born artist tries to save
musical works... from the ravages of the commonplace and
the conventional. We would do better to welcome as a sign
of enlivening respect (the enemy of every dead word
[and] attitude that has become rigid through being taken
for granted), this fruitful illusion which leads the
interpreter to believe momentarily that he is the creator
of the work which needs his collaboration, and to shape
its expression according to the mysterious secret of his
inner vision.

It matters little that a Beethoven genially dramatized
by Liszt, whose style symbolized all the stormy
aspirations of romanticism, was followed by [a Beethoven]
subjected to the philosophical exegesis of a von Biilow,
epitomizing an era which scarcely identified any longer
with... [the world view of a Chateaubriand]. Or more
recently that a Busoni, inspired by the desire for
scientific lucidity that characterizes our time, forced
himself to thrust the scalpel of rational analysis into
the open wound of an immortal torment. Or even that a
Paderewski, electrifying all music by mere contact with
his expansive personality, tried paradoxically to sound
the ardent and nostalgic voice of Poland through
[Beethoven's] impassioned outpouring .... The sublime Sonatas have responded to each of these spiritual transfusions, these fervent and contradictory encounters with an [interpretive] imagination, by
displaying a richer life and a more touching flexibility. Like high mountain tops which are alternately bathed in clouds or flooded with bright light
depending on the play of the hours and the seasons,
changing their appearance while preserving ... the
outlines of their unalterable structure, the Sonatas take
up the color of every [interpretive] sensibility without
losing anything of their indelible original significance.
They become universalized, in a sense, through contact
with the divergent aims that happen to be expressed in
and through them. And the spirit of Beethoven could only
rejoice to have seen flourishing in the hearts of some of
his most distinguished interpreters, the profound meaning
of this advice he left... [us]: 'Music must set the mind
on fire"

[NorthNYMark]

A very interesting perspective (and one that I find generally persuasive, myself).  However, I would only call it "anti-HIP" if HIP is seen as an ideology of "correctness" rather than a stylistic choice.  In the latter case, a HIP performance would be seen as more reflective of our current tastes than anything else, and therefore completely in line with Cortot's understanding.

[Pat B]

I think he's really opposing literalism, which is definitely not the same thing as HIP. HIP can be very imaginative.

Regardless, I think it's a bunch of hooey. I'm not opposed to performers taking "bold liberties" (I like some of Gould's Beethoven) but I can't think of a single masterwork that needs to be "saved" by such liberties.

[Ken B]

I think he's really opposing literalism, which is definitely not the same thing as HIP. HIP can be very imaginative.

Regardless, I think it's a bunch of hooey. I'm not opposed to performers taking "bold liberties" (I like some of Gould's Beethoven) but I can't think of a single masterwork that needs to be "saved" by such liberties.

"You should thank me for making that obsolete dullard Beethoven interesting. "

[Brian]

Granted, I am drunk and my beers might influence my coherence here, but this is not so much "anti-HIP" as "pro-artist." Cortot's strong support for new ways of thinking and new interpretive mechanisms does not preclude using period instruments, tuning, or performance philosophies. In fact, if you don't believe HIP to be an authentic enterprise, or if you believe HIP to be a quixotic enterprise for something unknowable, then you can see HIP as a new stylistic school in itself, overthrowing the old.

At any rate, I don't think great HIP artists like Penelope Crawford, Andreas Staier, or Alexei Lubimov would appreciate the suggestion that historically-minded practices reduce the possibilities for master artistry to make itself known and felt in new and original ways.

[Ken B]

Granted, I am drunk and my beers might influence my coherence here, but this is not so much "anti-HIP" as "pro-artist." Cortot's strong support for new ways of thinking and new interpretive mechanisms does not preclude using period instruments, tuning, or performance philosophies. In fact, if you don't believe HIP to be an authentic enterprise, or if you believe HIP to be a quixotic enterprise for something unknowable, then you can see HIP as a new stylistic school in itself, overthrowing the old.

No, there's too much about the spirit of the times, and an implicit dismissal of what an earlier such performer brought to the music in his time. It would be obsolete and depreciating too.  He clearly means music of the past is remote, that remoteness is a fault, and only a performer of the present, possibly by wild liberties, can salvage what has not been lost. Shakespeare only works in modern dress, with modern slang.
Pat's word is good. Hooey. Or Hooeyrseshit.

[Mandryka]

I think it's relatively rare to find such a clear statement of romantic ideas about performance. It's especially interesting how he puts the focus on the interpreter's inspiration. That's why I thought it was worth sharing.

It's not at all clear to me which aspects, if any, of the composer's intentions about the music mattered for Cortot.

I thought the metaphor about the mountain at the end was interesting - so far I've not found anything he said/wrote where he cashes the metaphor - where he explains which aspects of the music go to make the surviving, unchanging mountain. Whether or not Cortot's ideas and HIP ideas are compatible really rests on what makes up the mountain - what the music is made up of.

Another interesting thing to think about is how, if at all, Cortot's view differs from Glenn Gould's or Nikolaus Harnoncourt's. Or Furtwangler's.

[North Star]

I thought the metaphor about the mountain at the end was interesting - so far I've not found anything he said/wrote where he cashes the metaphor - where he explains which aspects of the music go to make the surviving, unchanging mountain. Whether or not Cortot's ideas and HIP ideas are compatible really rests on what makes up the mountain - what the music is made up of.

He must have meant that the score is the mountain, and the light shining on it is the interpreter. The music (and instruments) of our own times, and all music before & after the score, affect our listening, of course. Cortot was from another culture from us, though, and it would be silly to use them to counter the modern HIP, which, while of course influenced by modern music's sensibilities (and vice versa), is nonetheless also about showing the mountain in as true light as possible.

[Brian]

Another interesting thing to think about is how, if at all, Cortot's view differs from Glenn Gould's or Nikolaus Harnoncourt's. Or Furtwangler's.

It would have been fascinating to present this passage to a thinker-musician like Charles Mackerras and ask him for comment.

[Mandryka]

He must have meant that the score is the mountain, and the light shining on it is the interpreter. The music (and instruments) of our own times, and all music before & after the score, affect our listening, of course. Cortot was from another culture from us, though, and it would be silly to use them to counter the modern HIP, which, while of course influenced by modern music's sensibilities (and vice versa), is nonetheless also about showing the mountain in as true light as possible.

He was ready to change the score when he felt so inclined. A good example is the Chopin op 28/15 from Munich in 1955

https://www.youtube.com/v/ronUfqgIIYA

[Mandryka]

Re the whole issue of making performances informed by history, Cortot had quite a bit to say about it.

It is regrettable that one often plays quite wrongly, in an organ style, pieces written for the harpsichord or the salon. This is how it is regarding the chromatic fantasy and fugue. The suites for solo cello were also distorted until Casals restored the confidential character which belongs to them. Works such as the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue . . . are often played with too much ostentation because one tries to play them in the style of organ music.

Where he took a work not intended for piano he made changes to the score to make it sound right on the piano, or righter. So , for example, in his notes to his transcription of the D minor organ toccata and fugue, he justifies the addition of an extra bar and the change of key in the final cadence saying

The sumptuous plenitude of the closing bar gives to this prelude a sonorous power and a radiation to which the resources of the piano cannot pretend. We believe that we do not betray Bach's intention in granting to the interpreter of this translation the possibility of rendering with a greater intensity the majestic significance of the last chords of the coda by orienting them towards the tonality of D major . . . 

[NorthNYMark]

Granted, I am drunk and my beers might influence my coherence here, but this is not so much "anti-HIP" as "pro-artist." Cortot's strong support for new ways of thinking and new interpretive mechanisms does not preclude using period instruments, tuning, or performance philosophies. In fact, if you don't believe HIP to be an authentic enterprise, or if you believe HIP to be a quixotic enterprise for something unknowable, then you can see HIP as a new stylistic school in itself, overthrowing the old.

At any rate, I don't think great HIP artists like Penelope Crawford, Andreas Staier, or Alexei Lubimov would appreciate the suggestion that historically-minded practices reduce the possibilities for master artistry to make itself known and felt in new and original ways.

I agree with your reading here, drunken or not!

[Mookalafalas]

He must have meant that the score is the mountain, and the light shining on it is the interpreter.

  I agree that the mountain is the score, but whether it is bathed in sunlight or obscured by clouds is the interpretation.  The mountains can appear differently, depending on the season or the time of day or the weather (how an interpreter "dresses" them), but they (the score) does not, in fact, change. This agrees with my general view: any interpretation is a valid interpretation--even if it is a combination of the original and the performers art and ideas.  We shouldn't fear the "willful" interpretation. It doesn't hurt anything, just gives us another view to enjoy (or dismiss).   

[North Star]

  I agree that the mountain is the score, but whether it is bathed in sunlight or obscured by clouds is the interpretation.  The mountains can appear differently, depending on the season or the time of day or the weather (how an interpreter "dresses" them), but they (the score) does not, in fact, change. This agrees with my general view: any interpretation is a valid interpretation--even if it is a combination of the original and the performers art and ideas.  We shouldn't fear the "willful" interpretation. It doesn't hurt anything, just gives us another view to enjoy (or dismiss).

Agreed, this is what I referred to by saying that the interpreter is what lights the mountain. And the light can distort our perception of the mountain, just as the performer can. Of course, not all light is equally interesting, revealing or truthful.

[Pat B]

  I agree that the mountain is the score, but whether it is bathed in sunlight or obscured by clouds is the interpretation.  The mountains can appear differently, depending on the season or the time of day or the weather (how an interpreter "dresses" them), but they (the score) does not, in fact, change. This agrees with my general view: any interpretation is a valid interpretation--even if it is a combination of the original and the performers art and ideas.  We shouldn't fear the "willful" interpretation. It doesn't hurt anything, just gives us another view to enjoy (or dismiss).

There's a big difference between not fearing an unusual interpretation, and asserting that such interpretations are the only way for masterpieces to remain valuable.

[Ken B]

There's a big difference between not fearing an unusual interpretation, and asserting that such interpretations are the only way for masterpieces to remain valuable.

Yes. And that is clearly what Cortot is saying.

A lot of projection going on here amongst his defenders.  Cortot did NOT justify the role of the performer tout court, only that of the contemporary one. For him the performer of yesterday is as depreciated as the composer of yesteryear. For Cortot a recording of Hummel playing Mozart would fail as music, because it's too old and remote. Mozart playing Mozart might be even worse according to Cortot's logic. Old music needs to be rescued, it is losing value every passing day.

[Mandryka]

Yes. And that is clearly what Cortot is saying.

A lot of projection going on here amongst his defenders.  Cortot did NOT justify the role of the performer tout court, only that of the contemporary one. For him the performer of yesterday is as depreciated as the composer of yesteryear. For Cortot a recording of Hummel playing Mozart would fail as music, because it's too old and remote. Mozart playing Mozart might be even worse according to Cortot's logic. Old music needs to be rescued, it is losing value every passing day.

And by the same logic a recording of Cortot playing Chopin in the 1930s is a failiour today. The job of the performer is to make the Chopin out contemporary.

This may be compatible with weak HIP ideas, I suspect I could formulate a HIP principle which it didn't contradict at least,  but it is not compatible with the idea that the composer had an intention about how the music should sound, and it's the performer's job to recreate it.

[NorthNYMark]

Yes. And that is clearly what Cortot is saying.

A lot of projection going on here amongst his defenders.  Cortot did NOT justify the role of the performer tout court, only that of the contemporary one. For him the performer of yesterday is as depreciated as the composer of yesteryear. For Cortot a recording of Hummel playing Mozart would fail as music, because it's too old and remote. Mozart playing Mozart might be even worse according to Cortot's logic. Old music needs to be rescued, it is losing value every passing day.

I don't think he is thinking of Mozart or Hummel playing Mozart (which would require a time machine), but a situation in which people were to have played Mozart in exactly the same way, for every performance since the work was written, with no change whatsoever to accommodate either personal inspiration or larger cultural developments in taste,  While we might still appreciate the music under such circumstances, it might not seem as vibrant and living as music that can accommodate the vastly different approaches of, say, a Furtwangler, a Szell, or a Gardiner in Beethoven.  In any case, even if you disagree with him in theory, and believe that the music would still be just as vital to us today without all those periodic renewals, in practice you cannot say for sure, as we only know the music as it has been reinterpreted in the age of recording. Mozart by Mozart can only be a figment of our imaginations at this point.  And if that (Mozart played as Mozart would have) is what audiences and performers really wanted to preserve at all costs, performance practices presumably would never have developed as they did. So the music may not "need to be rescued," but for some reason, people have nevertheless been doing so, decade by decade.

[Pat B]

The job of the performer is to make the Chopin out contemporary.

That is a valid approach but not the only valid approach.

[jochanaan]

Well, Cortot was a Romantic.  What he says about the right and power of performers is true, but there is also an obligation on performers not to go too far from what the composer actually wrote or what we know about historical performance practices.  And often, the clear light of study can in fact illumine the mountain as much as Romantic-style "insight."

There is a balance point to be found.  Performers like Alfred Brendel and Peter Serkin find it very well in Beethoven's music; they both stick very close to the notes and "accepted" interpretations of Beethoven's music, but within those strict limits they play with tremendous freedom and power.  Brendel himself has said that he never played e.g. Beethoven's Sonata #14 the same way twice, yet every time he plays exactly what Beethoven wrote. -- That may say more about the limitations of musical notation than about performance practices.