At what point do period instruments become no longer relevant?

[Chris L.]

Although I don't consider myself to be a classical music "beginner", there is still much that I don't know so I thought I'd post this question here.

At what point do period instruments become no longer relevant in performance? By this I mean at what point in time of musical history did orchestral instruments, pianos, etc. become standardized to the point where a performance of the particular composers music doesn't require any period instruments to be considered "authentic"?

I seen a recording of Chopin's music stating that the piano used was a "period piece" of the type that Chopin himself may have played, but I thought the piano was largely standardized and like our modern ones by Chopin's time. Apparently, I was wrong. It seems like the later and later I go in classical music history there are still period instruments to be had for a specific composer or recording, much to my surprise. 

[Jo498]

I am not an expert and while I personally find it somewhat strange to find "original instruments" Ravel recordings (by Immerseel, for instance), instruments have been continually developing even in the 20th century, so such claims are technically not false. In the mid-19th century pianos did have a steel/iron frame, but they were still softer and more heterogeneous in the different registers I guess. There were also bigger differences between the makers of pianos.

Similar thoughts could applied to woodwinds and brass. And string players did not favor steel strings until the 20th century. So there are differences. To me they do not matter as much as in music of the 18th century where I usually prefer historical instruments.

[springrite]

Agree with Jo.


On a non-musical front, I wish someone would play tennis and golf on period instruments. But I guess that belongs in the diner...

[Fagotterdämmerung]

  Instruments are constantly changing, even in ones where the basic design produced a recognizable instrument ages ago.

  Take the the trombone: the basic principle ( cylindrical-bored brass instrument with a slide to change the fundamental ) has been around since late medieval times, but it's been constantly changing as well. Most recently, after the second world war, there was a widespread adoption of large-bore instruments and subsequent darkening and broadening of tone makes it quite different from the trombone sound of 1900, especially the French ( whose brass sections sounded quite different than today: narrower bore trumpets and horns, funnel mouthpiece and narrow bore trombones, an almost unrecognizable tuba pitched higher than the trombone but with valves to extended its lower range into our modern-day familiar tuba territory ).

   While our modern orchestra looks much more like one from 1900 than 1700, there would be quite a bit of justification in having a period Romantic orchestra with its own period instruments, especially in the winds. Generally the overall trend has been towards a bigger sound out of all the instruments, occasionally to the detriment of the timbre ( listen to a gut stringed violin, even a wound gut string, versus a steel core, to hear an appreciable difference ).

  Also, there has been a push towards homogenization. A major loss of the 20th century in my opinion is the loss of regional sounds: the timbrel difference between French, German, English, Viennese, and to a degree, Russian and American sounds has become much more international. Though there has been a recent upswing in interest in certain instruments, once common instruments like the French bassoon, the Vienna oboe and horn, and the German clarinet have lived perilously closed to extinction for a while.

  So, in some sense, every period has its instruments, though things have been comparably more fixed in the past fifty years or so.

[Que]

So basically all instruments are period instruments. Because their particular design belongs to a specific period (and/or region).
It is only the debate about the pros and cons of retrospective use of new(er) designs in older music that has given rise to the whole concept of the use "period instruments", as if that is something out of the ordinary....
For me it's quite simple: each period and regional style has its own instruments, or vice versa.

One could play Spanish music written for the vihuela on a late French lute,  arguing (hypothetically) that that instrument has more possibilities,  sounds better and is louder, etc.etc.In essence: "the other/newer instrument is inherently superior..." Apart from the fact that there is no such thing -  the change in the particular qualities of an instruments is not more than that: change that lead ultimately to a different sound - it doesn't make any real sense turning something into something it is not and never was, or does it? 

Answer to the question: period instrument will continue to be relevant as long as the music from the period they belong to continues to be relevant. Whether there wil be a point in  time that instruments stop developping and all regional differences are obliterated,  or if that moment has already arrived, I'm not sure...

The fact that orchestras use the same instruments for all repertoire is IMO mainly practical, and for concert practice certainly legitimate. But it is not hard to notice developments that: A) orchestras will continue to specialise and B) they will broaden their range of instruments to suit different musical styles and periods. Immerseel's Anima Eterna is a good example in this respect.

It will be very interesting to see how the big late Romantic symphony orchestras will handle this...
Options are: A) continue as they were, playing all repertoire in late Romantic set up, B) limit the range of repertoire and C) adopt to a multi purpose approach.

Q

[North Star]

it doesn't make any real sense turning something into something it is not and never was, or is there? 

Q

I don't mind Bach's transcriptions of those Italian concertos. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

You might say period instruments start becoming irrelevant even during a composer's lifetime. Berlioz for example welcomed the introduction of the tuba for his Symphonie Fantastique because they provided a stronger bass for the brass than the serpents and ophicleides he had available in 1830. There are obvious examples in Beethoven's piano and orchestral writing where he felt constrained by the limited ranges of the instruments of his time - such as the opening to Op. 10/3 where you can tell he needs a high F# his piano didn't have, and only a historical purist would not play that note today. Sometimes he gets around these limitations with considerable ingenuity, as where he uses bassoons rather than horns for the first movement of the Fifth, but elsewhere the results are unsatisfactory, as in the passage for horns and bassoons in the Egmont that seems designed for horn timbre and is usually played by four horns today. In the later piano music, where the instrument's range widened beyond the five-octave F-F he had in his youth, you can see Beethoven taking full advantage of the piano's wider compass.

[Que]

I don't mind Bach's transcriptions of those Italian concertos. 

I actually quite agree . I do enjoy Bach played on the piano as well.. As I really enjoy Szell's Mozart.

So I happily grant you that somtimes the result of turning something into something it was not, leads to very enjoyable results.
Although it is: A) not an accurate reflection (or rather an approximation thereof as close as possible) of how the music was originally conceived, which is not bad but it is just something else and B) not "inherently superior" to the original.

Q

[EigenUser]

Although I don't consider myself to be a classical music "beginner", there is still much that I don't know so I thought I'd post this question here.

At what point do period instruments become no longer relevant in performance? By this I mean at what point in time of musical history did orchestral instruments, pianos, etc. become standardized to the point where a performance of the particular composers music doesn't require any period instruments to be considered "authentic"?

I seen a recording of Chopin's music stating that the piano used was a "period piece" of the type that Chopin himself may have played, but I thought the piano was largely standardized and like our modern ones by Chopin's time. Apparently, I was wrong. It seems like the later and later I go in classical music history there are still period instruments to be had for a specific composer or recording, much to my surprise.

That's a good question and I've wondered the same thing, myself. While I don't have an answer, I do have a funny cartoon:

[prémont]

I don't mind Bach's transcriptions of those Italian concertos. 

Nor do I, as far as they are played on period instruments.

[prémont]

Sometimes he gets around these limitations with considerable ingenuity, as where he uses bassoons rather than horns for the first movement of the Fifth, but elsewhere the results are unsatisfactory, as in the passage for horns and bassoons in the Egmont that seems designed for horn timbre and is usually played by four horns today.

Maybe, but your claims repesent interpretation and should be regarded as such.

[Bogey]

That's a good question and I've wondered the same thing, myself. While I don't have an answer, I do have a funny cartoon:

Perfect!  I run my vinyl through an an early 70's Marantz receiver and the floor speakers my dad had when I was 5.  It does sound like the music I used to hear.  So I am a HIS(stereo) listener.

[mszczuj]

I would say that Chopin is the one who needs period instrument the most, and that it should be Pleyel not Erard.

[jochanaan]

...  While our modern orchestra looks much more like one from 1900 than 1700, there would be quite a bit of justification in having a period Romantic orchestra with its own period instruments, especially in the winds....

Such an orchestra actually exists, and it is one of the world's best.  The Vienna Philharmonic uses instruments designed exactly as they were in the late 1800s; the instruments are part of their unique sound.

Most instruments reached essentially their present form around the second half of the 19th century.  Franz Liszt had the opportunity to try a Steinway, and it is said that he had nothing but praise for it.  (During his concert career in the 1830s and '40s, he had mostly played on French Erards, breaking strings right and left--literally. )  Flutes, oboes, clarinets and bassoons were modernized gradually, around 1840-1870.  (Perhaps some of the bowed-string and brass players on GMG could give us more information about when their instruments developed into their modern forms.)  So the "practical cutoff" for period-instrument performance appears to be around 1850.  It should be noted, though, that Wagner and Brahms both continued to write horn and trumpet parts as if for "natural" valveless horns and trumpets in multiple keys.

[North Star]

The violin bow was modernized to its current form by François Tourte (1774-1835). I recall that Immerseel's Anima Eterna used both baroque bows and modern bows in their Beethoven recordings. But I don't have the booklet at hand at present.

[Que]

Franz Liszt had the opportunity to try a Steinway, and it is said that he had nothing but praise for it. 

Well, all Lizst played on late 19th century Steinway would IMO be a huge improvement. 

Q

[Mandryka]

Obviously an anachronistic performance can be an improvement over an authentic one, it's not a priori that an authentic performance is better poetry than an inauthentic one.  I would say that for some of Mozart's and Beethoven's music, and maybe for a some romantic style music, many of the best performances are anachronistic, and hence inauthentic, just because some of the very greatest musicians have applied their minds to making performances on modern pianos or violins or with incorrectly formed orchestras and incorrect ideas about balance, rubato , tempo and phrasing. We haven't had a HIP Furtwangler or Cortot yet. JSB has done really well out of period performance, so has Haydn. I'm not sure why there's this assymetry.

[Mandryka]

That's a good question and I've wondered the same thing, myself. While I don't have an answer, I do have a funny cartoon:

The issue of authenticity is a big issue, a big problem in fact, for prepared piano music, recreating Cage's piano. I was once at a concert where Joanna Macgregor discussed this, you need a certain type of nut which is no longer made. I seem to remember there were some problems also for the electronics in Kontakte, or was it Mantra, I could be wrong.

[Jo498]

I would say that for some of Mozart's and Beethoven's music, and maybe for a some romantic style music, many of the best performances are anachronistic, and hence inauthentic, just because some of the very greatest musicians have applied their minds to making performances on modern pianos or violins or with incorrectly formed orchestras and incorrect ideas about balance, rubato , tempo and phrasing. We haven't had a HIP Furtwangler or Cortot yet. JSB has done really well out of period performance, so has Haydn. I'm not sure why there's this assymetry.

Probably because there was a much stronger tradition for Mozart and Beethoven than for Haydn and JS Bach. Lots of Haydn was virtually ignored, the symphonies played from editions with some of the woodwind and brass missing or wrong. And with Bach it was often even worse, despite better texts, because the romantic choral tradition had taken over, distorting the pieces quite a bit. There is some good historical Bach on the piano (like Edwin Fischer's).

[Mandryka]

In fact I rather regret saying that about Haydn. For string quartets and maybe the sole keyboard sonatas too,  the best recordings from the point of view of the poetry are often not on authentic instruments, or played in an informed way. It's just a shame that the Beaux Arts Trios set is so disappointing. I don't know enough about the symphonies to comment with confidence, even less so about the other music.