The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Marc]

I actually hoped you'd ask. It's Gustav Leonhardt. 

https://www.earlymusicworld.com/gustav-leonhardt-interview

Yeah, it's a rather well known (and (in)famous) interview in the HIP-world, also because he completely burned down the OVPP theory for Bach's vocal works.
I once read another interview with him where he slaughtered Händel. Summarized: a second grade composer with no sense of architecture.
Years ago there was an internet link where Leonhardt quotes about GFH were collected. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore.

[Marc]

Yeah, it's a rather well known (and (in)famous) interview in the HIP-world, also because he completely burned down the OVPP theory for Bach's vocal works.
I once read another interview with him where he slaughtered Händel. Summarized: a second grade composer with no sense of architecture.
Years ago there was an internet link where Leonhardt quotes about GFH were collected. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore.

Found it (more or less). On our very own board!
It wasn't an internet site, it was the Dutch magazine Luister:

About Händel, Leonhardt once said in an interview with Dutch music magazine Luister:

"IMO, the man is extremely overrated as a composer. He could set up a nice facade but completely lacked the ability to build the cathedral behind it. External effect, métier, nothing more."

(I disagree, btw. I think this 'opinion' is extremely exaggerated. Leonhardt, despite his modesty about his own abilities, had more of those, and not only concerning music.)

[prémont]

Indeed!

I did. He says it's impractical for concerts though.

But he's a good example of semi-HIP isn't he, just using a piano.

Yes, he [Andras Schiff] has improved with time. 

[prémont]

Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French (including for sacred music) and of the Germans, Haendel and Telemann, and the first was not much of a German when it comes to music, anyway. I am the exact opposite of Leonhardt in that I firmly believe seriousness and profundity are either hugely overrated or (which basically amounts to the same) defined and appraised in exclusively Northern Germanic, ie Protestant and Calvinist, terms and guises.

There, I said it. Stone me to death.

I would be the last one to stone you to death for that reason. But I need a little more time to answer this.

[prémont]

Yeah, it's a rather well known (and (in)famous) interview in the HIP-world, also because he completely burned down the OVPP theory for Bach's vocal works.
I once read another interview with him where he slaughtered Händel. Summarized: a second grade composer with no sense of architecture.
Years ago there was an internet link where Leonhardt quotes about GFH were collected. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore.

One of these quotes, which made a strong impression upon me - if not for the good:

"Why should I play Händel, when I can play the best."

[Ken B]

Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French

I cannot really blame you for this shameful sin, since it's predestined. Predestination is a bitch.

[Mahlerian]

I won't throw the first stone: I could have written that myself. I didn't because I thought that after 15 years here y'all knew that about me already. Except for the French stuff, of course. But if you truly love Austrian music from the 18th century (and I do), you can't be a true believer in German anything, because they are polar opposites. Which should make you wonder at the credibility of anyone who calls music before the 19th century "Austro-German". 

What about the love of Bach's music that Haydn and Mozart shared, then?  Were they somehow improperly Austrian?

(Or Mozart, at least.  Maybe Haydn didn't love JS Bach's music.  They both certainly appreciated and learned from CPE Bach's music.)

Anyway, I love Debussy and Mahler both very strongly, and their aesthetics were as different as can be imagined.  I don't see what those kinds of differences have to do with being able to appreciate a given style of music.

[Marc]

Actually this reminds me it's high time to make a confession in all earnest: it's not that I listen to Bach on the piano on a regular basis; truth is, I don't listen to Bach on a regular basis at all, he's my least favorite of the Late Baroque composers. I vastly prefer the Italians and the French (including for sacred music) and of the Germans, Haendel and Telemann, and the first was not much of a German when it comes to music, anyway. I am the exact opposite of Leonhardt in that I firmly believe seriousness and profundity are either hugely overrated or (which basically amounts to the same) defined and appraised in exclusively Northern Germanic, ie Protestant and Calvinist, terms and guises.

There, I said it. Stone me to death.

Listening to Bach's music means loads of fun to me. I do not know of any (classical) music that makes me want to move around and dance more than his.
You also might want to check out the North German late 17th century 'stylus phantasticus' works. It's wild, man. This evening I raised up to the church rooftops on Buxtehude's BuxWV 149 again. Yabba dabba doo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNYxXIRJ-mA

[San Antone]

Bach is the only Baroque composer I listen to.  But I have very limited taste; only a relatively small number of composers are ones I like.  I've never "gotten" Vivaldi.  But Bach has been a long-standing constant in my listening life. 

[Madiel]

Composition is an act of imagination.

Anyone who asserts that a composer could not possibly have conceived ideas about the performance of their music that were not possible at the time that they composed it, is limiting the composer's imagination in a way that is unlikely to reflect how composers actually think.

I believe it was Shostakovich who lamented the fact that current instruments were not capable of playing one of his pieces the way he really wanted (trumpet or trombone? I forget and I can't find the quote at the moment), and expressed both the hope that one day improvements to the instrument would make it work, and fear that people would keep insisting on playing the piece on a Shostakovich-era instrument.

[Madiel]

I should also add that the Maasaki Suzuki set of Bach cantatas raises the possibility that Bach actually invented, or contributed to the invention of, some obscure instruments for the purposes of some of those cantatas, as they discuss what references to some unusual instruments in the score are actually supposed to be.

Don't just tell me what Bach did. Bach also dreamed.

[Gurn Blanston]

What about the love of Bach's music that Haydn and Mozart shared, then?  Were they somehow improperly Austrian?

(Or Mozart, at least.  Maybe Haydn didn't love JS Bach's music.  They both certainly appreciated and learned from CPE Bach's music.)

Anyway, I love Debussy and Mahler both very strongly, and their aesthetics were as different as can be imagined.  I don't see what those kinds of differences have to do with being able to appreciate a given style of music.

Doesn't matter really, I like them, not who they might have liked. I admire Bach and concede his greatness. He leaves me cold. I prefer Fux, who, it happens, Bach claims as one of his favorites.  And especially Vivaldi. Another Bach favorite, BTW.

CPE and Telemann are the only 2 actual 18th century German composers I like muchly. Whereas you can pick almost any Austrian, Italian or Bohemian composer from that time and I'll be happy as a clam.  

[Mahlerian]

Doesn't matter really, I like them, not who they might have liked. I admire Bach and concede his greatness. He leaves me cold. I prefer Fux, who, it happens, Bach claims as one of his favorites.  And especially Vivaldi. Another Bach favorite, BTW.

CPE and Telemann are the only 2 actual 18th century German composers I like muchly. Whereas you can pick almost any Austrian, Italian or Bohemian composer from that time and I'll be happy as a clam.  

I wasn't contesting your (or Florestan's) taste.  You like some things well and others less, as do I.

I was just surprised that you see some kind of contradiction in loving 18th century German music and loving 18th century Austrian music, given that the composers themselves saw no such contradiction (unlike Debussy/Mahler, per my example).

[Gurn Blanston]

I wasn't contesting your (or Florestan's) taste.  You like some things well and others less, as do I.

I was just surprised that you see some kind of contradiction in loving 18th century German music and loving 18th century Austrian music, given that the composers themselves saw no such contradiction (unlike Debussy/Mahler, per my example).

Ah, I see what you mean. Well here's the thing; the entire philosophy of performing arts in Germany was entirely different than it was in Austria. There was a cottage industry among German critics involving deriding everything Austrian. It wasn't the composers so much as it was the critics especially, and the philosophers. Haydn was a favorite target, and it was virulent. My Shakespeare & Haydn essay has a very few examples in it, but there are many more. And the music is clearly different. Austria chose mainly sunny Italian models. Germany chose much more stern and uncompromising models. Affekt was all-important in German music, much less so in Austrian.

So the point I was after is that lumping together German & Austrian music, something which is frequently done, is paradoxical at best.

[Mahlerian]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well here's the thing; the entire philosophy of performing arts in Germany was entirely different than it was in Austria. There was a cottage industry among German critics involving deriding everything Austrian. It wasn't the composers so much as it was the critics especially, and the philosophers. Haydn was a favorite target, and it was virulent. My Shakespeare & Haydn essay has a very few examples in it, but there are many more. And the music is clearly different. Austria chose mainly sunny Italian models. Germany chose much more stern and uncompromising models. Affekt was all-important in German music, much less so in Austrian.

So the point I was after is that lumping together German & Austrian music, something which is frequently done, is paradoxical at best.

I think I see what you mean now.  All of these cultural battles seem very distant from me, with perhaps the exception of those waged in and around Vienna ca. 1900, which I have come to know decently well.

What I do know is the music, and regardless of what theorists and philosophers at the time believed, I think that the differences in this case are not so vast as to preclude admiration for both German and Austrian music of that era.

I know for sure that I don't agree with the musical views of a good number of the theorists and philosophers working today in the Anglosphere.

[André]

Currently embarking on a listening spell of the complete Mozart sonatas on fortepiano played by Bart van Oort.




The instruments used are mostly Walter fortepianos contemporaneous with the music (1785, 1795 and 1800) rebuilt/restored 1995-2002. Van Oort makes sure to explain the HIP logic and thought that went into the recordings (2004-2005). Extensive notes on the instruments and playing techniques, as well as on the music - 15 pages of densely packed notes in English only - no pics, no musical examples, just words. The HIP credentials of the enterprise seem totally kosher.

So, in all likelihood this is the real thing, as far as playing on a viennese fortepiano of the time can bring us to the sounds and keyboard mechanics available to Mozart in his time. It goes without saying that both instrument and piano playing are as different as could be from what Arrau, Brendel, Uchida, Gilels, Katin or Kraus offer us on their piano grands. I'm happy to have both POVs available in highly proficient and sensitive accounts from all these artists.

[Ken B]

Currently embarking on a listening spell of the complete Mozart sonatas on fortepiano played by Bart van Oort.




The instruments used are mostly Walter fortepianos contemporaneous with the music (1785, 1795 and 1800) rebuilt/restored 1995-2002. Van Oort makes sure to explain the HIP logic and thought that went into the recordings (2004-2005). Extensive notes on the instruments and playing techniques, as well as on the music - 15 pages of densely packed notes in English only - no pics, no musical examples, just words. The HIP credentials of the enterprise seem totally kosher.

So, in all likelihood this is the real thing, as far as playing on a viennese fortepiano of the time can bring us to the sounds and keyboard mechanics available to Mozart in his time. It goes without saying that both instrument and piano playing are as different as could be from what Arrau, Brendel, Uchida, Gilels, Katin or Kraus offer us on their piano grands. I'm happy to have both POVs available in highly proficient and sensitive accounts from all these artists.

I agree completely, but this has mostly taken over as my favourite Mozart piano set. And you forgot Walter Klien! His great set on Vox is available as a download.

[André]

Klien's set in a couple of Vox boxes (vinyl) was my first Mozart sonatas set ever, but I can't say much about it because I haven't listened to it in almost 30 years  . I do have some concertos by him though.

I should have mentioned I have 3 cdr discs from Brautigam's fortepiano integral. Since I don't have the booklets, I have no info on the instruments used. His approach is very different from van Oort's.

[Brian]

By the way, now that I'm finally at a computer that can access GMG regularly, I've finally read through the last 200ish posts of discussion that has erupted this week. It's at a consistently high level of civility, it's fascinating, and a great many posters contributed thought-provoking insights that will be sending me back to the music with reprogrammed ears. Thanks to those of you (not quite everyone, but close!) who have made this conversation so good and intelligent.

[Florestan]

Listening to Bach's music means loads of fun to me. I do not know of any (classical) music that makes me want to move around and dance more than his.

One man's treasure etc. 

You also might want to check out the North German late 17th century 'stylus phantasticus' works. It's wild, man. This evening I raised up to the church rooftops on Buxtehude's BuxWV 149 again. Yabba dabba doo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNYxXIRJ-mA

Thanks, listening right now. I'm not much of an organ guy, I'm afraid. Beside Haendel's Organ Concertos I can't name one single organ piece which I really like (not that I've listened to many). I like stylus fantasticus on violin, though, Biber and Schmelzer first and foremost, but the Italians were quite good at it as well. If you want something really wild try this:

Carlo Farina - Capriccio stravagante

https://www.youtube.com/v/-ux0yGwwWPs

It's extracted from a CD I reviewed here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21492.msg956897.html#msg956897

The Buxtehude prelude just finished. I would really like to say I liked it, but I didn't. I didn't dislike it, either. It just did nothing for me. I'm truly sorry for such a negative feedback but can't help it.    I'll give you, though, that hearing it live in a church might very well change my opinion for the better.