The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[San Antone]

When music is compared to speech, it is particularly the phrasing and articulation (and affect)which are compared. I do not think it makes sense to compare any (intended or unintended) "meaning".

When we say something, or write something, our concern is to be precise so that the hearer understands exactly what we wish to communicate: "I'd like some coffee, please"; "I hate asparagus!"; "what is your name?".  Language is designed to communicate precise ideas, music is incapable of communicating exact messages, but conveys something far more ephemeral.  Music is not a language in the way English or French is a language, and we will never agree as to what is communicated by the Hammerklavier sonata whereas we all will agree what "my cat is black" means.

[Karl Henning]

When we say something, or write something, our concern is to be precise so that the hearer understands exactly what we wish to communicate: "I'd like some coffee, please"; "I hate asparagus!"; "what is your name?".  Language is designed to communicate precise ideas, music is incapable of communicating exact messages, but conveys something far more ephemeral.  Music is not a language in the way English or French is a language, and we will never agree as to what is communicated by the Hammerklavier sonata whereas we all will agree what "my cat is black" means.

Again:  Yes.

[San Antone]

All true.  And the question arises, if music is (supposedly) a "universal language"—who is doing the speaking?

I think it is the hearer that determines what the music means more so than the "speaker".  But musicians who do not share a language can play music together, which is what I think that phrase "universal language" means.

[Mandryka]

Okay, since no one else played, here is my two cents on the issue.

Misha Elman was a pupil of Leopold Auer who in turn taught violin at the St. Petersburg Conservatory and was the dedicatee of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concertos (the former praised Auer for his "great expressivity, the thoughtful finesse and poetry of the interpretation) and was himself the leader of a famous Russian string quartet. All this is strong reason to suppose that the Elman's version, admittedly much more sentimental, bordering on saccharine, is more "authentic" than the Borodin's and it's probably how this quartet was played during Tchaikovsky's lifetime.

Now: does this piece of historical information change your preference? Are you going to prefer the Elman's interpretation from now on just because theirs is probably what Tchaikovsky himself would have heard?

No.

I think, you know, that HIP people are well aware that you can play in an inauthentic way , and sometimes some people like it. Sometimes a lie may even be more palatable than the truth.

Just as a matter of contingent fact, I find the HIP performances generally nicer than the ones which aren't. That's probably because the composers I'm interested in knew what they wanted and had some very good ideas about what the music should sound like. But this is contingent on the listener and composer.

[San Antone]

Okay, since no one else played, here is my two cents on the issue.

Misha Elman was a pupil of Leopold Auer who in turn taught violin at the St. Petersburg Conservatory and was the dedicatee of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concertos (the former praised Auer for his "great expressivity, the thoughtful finesse and poetry of the interpretation) and was himself the leader of a famous Russian string quartet. All this is strong reason to suppose that the Elman's version, admittedly much more sentimental, bordering on saccharine, is more "authentic" than the Borodin's and it's probably how this quartet was played during Tchaikovsky's lifetime.

Now: does this piece of historical information change your preference? Are you going to prefer the Elman's interpretation from now on just because theirs is probably what Tchaikovsky himself would have heard?

Good point.  How Bach is played is determined by the zeitgeist of that generation.  Mendelssohn played Bach very differently than Suzuki or Gardiner; and all play Bach differently than how Bach himself did.

This is generally my point about HIP/PI: over the last five decades or so, a preference has been to enjoy hearing these works done quicker, without "Romanticisms", using what we believe are appropriate instruments or ensembles, etc.  But we still do not know, and will never know, if what we accomplish is close to what was done in the period when the music was written.

[Karl Henning]

I think it is the hearer that determines what the music means more so than the "speaker".

Indeed!

But musicians who do not share a language can play music together, which is what I think that phrase "universal language" means.

Very good.

[Ken B]

"Plink selon plonk"

Suddenly we're talking about Boulez?

[Karl Henning]

No, Mennin.

[prémont]

Now: does this piece of historical information change your preference? Are you going to prefer the Elman's interpretation from now on just because theirs is probably what Tchaikovsky himself would have heard?

Now you know, that I am a northerner who grew up in Lutheran surroundings, so I demand seriousness and profundity in the music, and I do not find this in Tchaikovsky's music, which I in short shall characterize as being technically well-crafted, melodious and emotional bordering the sentimental. So I prefer an interpretation which downplays the sentimentality. and the Borodin's deliver more of this than the Elman's. Other than that I do not like Elman's sliding, even if I know this was commonly done not many years ago. So my situation is similar to yours, but my object is the opposite. But if anyone tells me, that I am deadpan because I do not appreciate Tchaikovsky to the degree I should, this will not disturb my sleep at night.

[Mahlerian]

So nothing, just a joke. Why are you so serious all the time?

Work on your routine.  Then get back to me, mmkay?

[Florestan]

All I'm saying is that the harpsichord offers a different, and very rewarding, way to enjoy this music that you are currently missing out on. Which, aside from theoretical " correctness"  happens to be the kind of musical experience that harpsichord music was created for... 

But then again, what you don't know, you can't miss...

See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way. 

Sorry but I disagree. There is no right way to listen to any given piece of music, or better said there are as many right ways as there are listeners.

[Florestan]

I think it is the hearer that determines what the music means more so than the "speaker".  But musicians who do not share a language can play music together, which is what I think that phrase "universal language" means.

Yes.

[Marc]

I used (long ago, by now) not to be able to listen to recorded harpsichord music for more than 10 minutes.

That began to change when I made friends with a harpsichordist;  my ears learnt how to listen to the instrument.  Now I could almost listen to nothing but harpsichord solo music for a week.

A non-connaisseur of classical music once asked me: Marc, what kind of guitar is that? It sounds awesome!
Only then I (fully) realized that the harpsichord is a plucked string instrument. Something completely different than the piano we know. Hence I stopped comparising immediately and began to appreciate this 'kind of guitar' more and more. It's such a beautiful and moving sound, and, to my ears, it fits the Allemandes, Fantasias and Gigues that I like to hear so perfectly.

Like an angel carressing and tickling my eardrums.

[Florestan]

I think, you know, that HIP people are well aware that you can play in an inauthentic way , and sometimes some people like it. Sometimes a lie may even be more palatable than the truth.

Our disagreement is deep and possibly irreconcilable. I believe there are no "authentic" and "inauthentic" ways of playing any given piece of music, much less "lies" and "truths" in this respect. Do you seriously think that professionally trained musicians --- a category to which, with all due respect, you do not belong (nor do I for that matter) --- such as Menno van Delft or Angela Hewitt play whatever and however they play in an "inauthentic" manner? That they have not studied the scores and are not able to counter your opbjections?  Just what do you mean by "authentic" or "inauthentic"? In my book, each and every interpretation that combines a sincerely held aesthetic conviction with artistic integrity and as flawless a technique as the artist can master is authentic. Authenticity is a marker of the performer, not of the instrument and not even of the score.

the composers I'm interested in knew what they wanted and had some very good ideas about what the music should sound like.

The composers I'm interested in were no different --- and actually I think every composer is the same. But "knowing what they wanted and having some very good ideas about how the music should sound like" is not the same as "they wanted their music to sound always and forever like they wanted it to sound". I refer you to my post above about Debussy, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev taking liberties with their own scores. What is it they truly wanted, pray tell? What they wrote in the score, or what they actually played?

Richard Taruskin recalls a rehearsal of an Eliott Carter's peice for violin and piano where the two performers constantly asked EC for guidance with the tempi and the dynamics and the invariable response was "i don't know... let's see" and then they all three proceeded to work their way through teh score amking adjustments. What did Carter really want?

[Mandryka]

See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way. 

Sorry but I disagree. There is no right way to listen to any given piece of music, or better said there are as many right ways as there are listeners.

You don't enjoy harpsichord music. Someone comes along and says that "the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines. The rewards or great...." And you say no thank you. This despite the fact that there's certainly no other way of enjoying keyboard music by Louis Couperin, D'Anglebert, Andrea Gabrieli, Georg Bohm and I'd argue Louis Couperin Froberger and many others. It just sounds like you've dug your heals in for no good reason.   

[Florestan]

You don't enjoy harpsichord music. Someone comes along and says that "the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines. The rewards or great...." And you say no thank you. This despite the fact that there's certainly no other way of enjoying keyboard music by Louis Couperin, D'Anglebert, Andrea Gabrieli, Georg Bohm and I'd argue Louis Couperin Froberger and many others. It just sounds like you've dug your heals in for no good reason.

Not at all. There's no other way of enjoying their music because the HIP intellectual totalitarianism has been quite succesful in convincing performers and audiences alike that... well, that here's no other way of enjoying their music, thus intimidating pianists away from engaging with this music. But I tell you that whenever a pianist is bold enough to tackle this repertoire with an imaginative mind and a serious comittment, such as Francesco Tristano did with Frescobaldi or Pavel Kolesnikov with Louis Couperin, the results have been most enjoyable to me. I do wish more pianists broke this absurd and self-proclaimed monopoly that the HIP gang imposed on this repertoire.

[Florestan]

This is generally my point about HIP/PI: over the last five decades or so, a preference has been to enjoy hearing these works done quicker, without "Romanticisms", using what we believe are appropriate instruments or ensembles, etc.  But we still do not know, and will never know, if what we accomplish is close to what was done in the period when the music was written.

And there's more to it: would we have enjoyed Bach's playing? Or Mozart's? Or Liszt's? Or Chopin's? Can anyone of us answer in all earnest in the positive?

[Mandryka]

Our disagreement is deep and possibly irreconcilable. I believe there are no "authentic" and "inauthentic" ways of playing any given piece of music, much less "lies" and "truths" in this respect. Do you seriously think that professionally trained musicians --- a category to which, with all due respect, you do not belong (nor do I for that matter) --- such as Menno van Delft or Angela Hewitt play whatever and however they play in an "inauthentic" manner? That they have not studied the scores and are not able to counter your opbjections?  Just what do you mean by "authentic" or "inauthentic"? In my book, each and every interpretation that combines a sincerely held aesthetic conviction with artistic integrity and as flawless a technique as the artist can master is authentic. Authenticity is a marker of the performer, not of the instrument and not even of the score.

I think the questions are really hard and I can't answer them yet. The truth is, I don't know what the composer has made, I don't know what a piece of music is. And I don't know what performance is. But I think that this idea is promising: that a composition is like a statement and that interpretation involves an activity analogous to understanding what someone says. That's why I've started to use truth related concepts (like lie, parody,) -- truth and interpretation go hand in hand.

I don't know Angela Hewitt personally, she may be a thoughtful musician for all I know. She's decided to use a piano for early music, she defends it in a feisty way saying that its tonal properties better reflect the ideas in Bach's scores than a harpsichord, but she never backs this up, it's just asserted without defence, and it seems wrong to me (I'm thinking of her claim that the piano is more brilliant sounding than a harpsichord and hence is more suited for the 6th partita and Chromatic Fantasy.) I am a little bit cynical about her, I don't think she's a scholar.

Why did you mention van Delft -- because of the clavichord partitas? I do have a problem with them, and I have no idea how he would respond if we discussed it.

[Mahlerian]

The composers I'm interested in were no different --- and actually I think every composer is the same. But "knowing what they wanted and having some very good ideas about how the music should sound like" is not the same as "they wanted their music to sound always and forever like they wanted it to sound". I refer you to my post above about Debussy, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev taking liberties with their own scores. What is it they truly wanted, pray tell? What they wrote in the score, or what they actually played?

Richard Taruskin recalls a rehearsal of an Eliott Carter's peice for violin and piano where the two performers constantly asked EC for guidance with the tempi and the dynamics and the invariable response was "i don't know... let's see" and then they all three proceeded to work their way through teh score amking adjustments. What did Carter really want?

Maybe he wanted the performers to interpret the score in their own way.  The fact that a composer wants his/her score performed accurately and with respect doesn't mean that that composer doesn't also want to have an individual touch applied to it.

I know as a composer myself that I think performers should follow what I write in the score, but that there is also lots of room for interpretation.  Does that open me up to some poor, distorted performances?  Yes.  No approach I could take would remove the possibility of such distortions.  I still think that interpretive leeway is valuable, and my experience is that most composers agree.

[Mandryka]

And there's more to it: would we have enjoyed Bach's playing?

Rosalyn Tureck said she had a direct line to Bach and he was guiding her (I think in dreams, but maybe voices, I can't remember) about how to play his music. So if you like Tureck you'd have liked Bach.