The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[JoshLilly]

I think a lot of older music sounds "wrong" when played with modern instruments. Or, especially with orchestral works, when played by overlarge orchestras. If Beethoven had been writing his Symphony #8 for the Wien Philharmonic, it would be scored very differently. I think that the Symphony #8, if intended for such an orchestra, represents bad orchestration, specifically thinking of the 4th movement.

Whether you like something more or not is a matter of personal taste and opinion. But I can't imagine how anyone can ignore the fact that composers of the early 19th century and earlier were not writing (usually) for hundred-piece orchestras that contained metal strings and padded timpani sticks and so on. The sound is different, therefore the composing would be different. Even F.J. Haydn's "London" Symphonies, intended for orchestras with a quantity of performers even Beethoven didn't write for, would sound different if he'd known they would play with metal strings on the violins, and so on.

I've heard of people who like J.S. Bach played on electric guitar duets and stuff. Well that's fine, they enjoy it. But if they argue that Bach actually intended it to sound that way, and wrote his keyboard music intending it to go for electric guitars and scored it accordingly, I think they're just wrong. Bach never heard of an electric guitar, and probably never heard a violin with gold strings either, or a modern piano. If he had, what he wrote would have been written differently.

And this, I think, is the value of performances that attempt to recapture some of that original stuff. Even if you end up not liking it as much, I wish people would not completely discard any value it has. I mean, do they really think Beethoven's Symphony #5 was supposed to sound like Johannard Brahmstein's Symphony #5 with 150 modern instruments?


PS: Padded timpani sticks are for pansies. And a violin string that you can't gnaw for nutrients is a total gyp.

[jochanaan]

...I ask because I have to imagine that at least a few composers, (Beethoven's late piano sonatas come to mind) who would prefer a more modern piano with less of the limitations of his day. In this case, wouldn't a more modern piano get us closer to what the composer desired?

Beethoven and Berlioz were unique cases.  They were, almost consciously, writing for instruments of the future, and thus their music sounds great either on period instruments or modern ones.  (By the time Wagner started writing his later operas, strings and woodwinds had nearly taken their modern form, although there have been advances in brass instrument design and manufacture since his days.)

But in Bach's case, or Mozart's, instruments and orchestral proportions have changed so radically since their day that it's almost necessary to go back to the old ones if you want to hear the music in its proportion.  This does not necessarily mean smaller orchestras--but if you're going to use a full modern orchestra, the woodwinds should be doubled to get the right sound balance.  (This is good HIP practice for large groups.  One of Mozart's letters describes an orchestra of forty violins, doubled winds, eight basses and six bassoons. )

[George]

Beethoven and Berlioz were unique cases.  They were, almost consciously, writing for instruments of the future, and thus their music sounds great either on period instruments or modern ones.  (By the time Wagner started writing his later operas, strings and woodwinds had nearly taken their modern form, although there have been advances in brass instrument design and manufacture since his days.)

Thanks, that clears a lot up for me. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Ok, when you say "closer to the composer," do you mean closer to what the composer would have heard or have been able to hear during his/her life?

I ask because I have to imagine that at least a few composers, (Beethoven's late piano sonatas come to mind) who would prefer a more modern piano with less of the limitations of his day. In this case, wouldn't a more modern piano get us closer to what the composer desired?

George,
Without being argumentative, I would just comment here that this is the imposition YOUR taste retrospectively on the composer. Beethoven had no more idea what a modern piano would sound like (nor do I even imagine that he gave it more than a passing thought) than you and I have on what sort of instrument music will be played on 200 years from now. He composed for what he had available to him. He may have mentally idealized the sound, since in the late sonatas you mention he was virtually deaf and composing from the memory of what the instrument sounded like, but he was more concerned about whether the player was up to the task than whether the instrument could have been better. And even then, he was always sure, as he told Schuppanzigh about the late quartets, damn your instrument, if you can't play it, someone will. He knew it was playable, even on the instruments of the time. It was jsut the player that wasn't up to it.




----------------
Now playing: Stadler Bassett - Lawson / Harris - Stadler Duettino #4 in Bb  for 2 Clarinets 4th mvmt - 19

[DavidW]

HIP is too broad an area to like or dislike as a whole.  HIPsters don't present a uniform front.  Just look at some other threads and you'll see lively discussion/chair throwing involving different HIP recordings.

[George]

George,
Without being argumentative, I would just comment here that this is the imposition YOUR taste retrospectively on the composer.

If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that the above is simply my opinion. If that is the case, I agree, that's why I wrote it in the form of "I imagine..." 

Beethoven had no more idea what a modern piano would sound like (nor do I even imagine that he gave it more than a passing thought) than you and I have on what sort of instrument music will be played on 200 years from now.

Sure, but wasn't he dissatisfied with the limitations of the pianos of his time? 

BTW, I am not trying to be argumentative either, I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter. 

[hornteacher]

Well, I've noticed the following:

Beethoven Symphonies are fine with me on modern or period instruments (although I notice the period instrument recordings are tuned a semitone lower than the modern instrument recordings, wonder why that is).

I perfer Bach played on harpsicord (it just sounds wrong to me when played on piano).

I like Mozart operas on period instruments (not sure why, I just do).

I like the sound of melodic lines played on natural horns.  Its a tough technique to master and I love hearing it done well.

I'm not a huge fan of Beethoven Piano Concertos on the period pianoforte.  To me it resembles the plink of a toy piano too much.

String Quartets on period instruments are more mellow, on modern instruments they sound more crisp.  I like both.

[johnQpublic]

I'm not a huge fan of Beethoven Piano Concertos on the period pianoforte.  To me it resembles the plink of a toy piano too much.

Agreed. Beethoven concerti on HIP...blech!!!

[Gurn Blanston]

Sure, but wasn't he dissatisfied with the limitations of the pianos of his time? 

IN the late 1790's, the pianos available to him didn't suit all his needs. There is never any specific thing given to explain exactly what is not suitable. Many people seem to jump on the idea of sound because that is the most apparent difference between his piano and ours. However, Beethoven was a player and composer. It is far more likely that the things he was irked with were action (both in the irritating way that the hammers would double strike strings and the way they (hammers) wouldn't return to striking position in time for the next note of rapid passages). Both of those problems were solved in the 1830's, and had no bearing on sound at all (unless it is double striking "bounces" that you notice when you listen to a fortepiano). The other huge difference involves the number of notes that could be played, the range or compass. All composers, not just Beethoven, had to work around this limitation, and it affected the music they produced. In fact, he went back in later years and rewrote passages (up an octave when possible) to be able to take advantage of the greater range now available to him.

I am posting this article that I saved from a different Forum for 2 reasons. One is to demonstrate that the compass of the keyboard was a limiting factor in composing. The other is to counter an old claim I have frequently read, here and in other places, that the key chosen for a works was dependent on a great number of factors, none of which seems to be the limitations of the instrument. I believe that in many (most?) cases, that's exactly what it was.

(A picture of) Mozart's own Walter Fortepiano. It's resolution is not as great as I'd like, but if you look close it does show the entire keyboard. The top note is F and the bottom note is F. Then I got out my book of the piano Sonatas and Fantasies. When you mentally play the music on the picture of the Fortepiano you see that these Sonatas just barely fit on that instrument.

For example...

K279 in C comes within 1/2 step of the top and 1/2 step of the bottom notes on that Walter keyboard.

K280 in F uses the very top and the very bottom notes of that keyboard.

K281 in Bb uses the very top and comes within a fourth of the bottom.

K282 in Eb has the most leeway in that it comes within 1/2 step of the top
and has an available octave at the bottom. This one Sonata could have been written in any key.

K283 in G uses the very top note and comes within 1/2 step of the bottom.

K284 in D comes within 1/2 step on top and a third on the bottom.

K309 in C uses the very top and comes within a full step of the bottom.

K311 in D comes within a second of the top and uses the very bottom note.

K310 in a uses the very top note and comes within a 1/2 step of bottom.

K396 The Fantasy in c minor uses the very top and very bottom notes of Mozart's piano. There is no other key but c minor for this music on this piano, this was not an emotional decision.

At any rate, you get the picture I think. Mozart used his entire keyboard in several pieces and came darn close in the others. There are very few options for writing any of these Sonatas in other keys. To want K310 in a minor to carry the "emotion" of e minor would be impossible. It had to be a or a flat minor, or wait for invention of larger keyboards.

Anyway, I don't think this discussion is limited to Beethoven, so Mozart's issues are also more than relevant.

Oh, a third issue (and perhaps the greatest) that Beethoven had with fortepianos, one that could be related to the sound as you construe it, is volume. There is no doubt that his contemporary pianos didn't have the volume of sound that modern ones have. Of course, this was a blessing as well as a curse. It is the reason that chamber music played on a fortepiano is so vastly superior to that played on a modern piano: the pianist isn't always having to throttle back to keep ensemble. But in solo music, especially in performance in a large room, obviously the modern piano has the advantage. But for the purposes of recordings, this is obviated by microphones and amplifiers, so it's moot. You won't hear the London Mozart Trio playing at Wembly without amplification. (Yes, that's a joke  ).




----------------
Now playing: Mozart/La Flûte Enchantée Pour Trois Cors De Basset Et Timbales - Le Trio Di Bassetto (Jean-Claude Veilhan, Eric Lorho, Jean-Louis Gauch) - Larghetto - 09

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, I've noticed the following:

Beethoven Symphonies are fine with me on modern or period instruments (although I notice the period instrument recordings are tuned a semitone lower than the modern instrument recordings, wonder why that is).

Surely you know? Perhaps the most common (although by no means the only) tuning used in the days before equal temperament was A = 415 hz. By convention, equal temperament in modern times has A = 440 hz. Thus, a semitone lower. Today, some orchestras (when not playing with a piano involved) use A = 445 or even more. The higher pitch gives a brighter sound.

One of my favorite HIP chamber groups is Ensemble 415. So now you know the derivation of their name.



----------------
Now playing: Mozart/La Flûte Enchantée Pour Trois Cors De Basset Et Timbales - Le Trio Di Bassetto (Jean-Claude Veilhan, Eric Lorho, Jean-Louis Gauch) - Andante

[hornteacher]

Surely you know? Perhaps the most common (although by no means the only) tuning used in the days before equal temperament was A = 415 hz. By convention, equal temperament in modern times has A = 440 hz. Thus, a semitone lower. Today, some orchestras (when not playing with a piano involved) use A = 445 or even more. The higher pitch gives a brighter sound.

I figured it was something like that but I couldn't remember for certain.  I knew about the modern 445 tunings because when I purchase instruments for my students from non-American companies (i.e. Yamaha) I have to research whether the instrument was constructed for a "higher pitched" orchestra.  I once got a set of french horns that were designed to be 445 horns and the kids had to pull slides out really far every time we tuned.

[FideLeo]

Malcolm Bilson once complained about how early HIP pianists (his examples
are Malcolm Binns & Paul Badura-Skoda) used not so expertly restored original
instruments to record Beethoven and suggested that totally different, indeed
musically much more satisfying results could be had if exceptional originals or
good modern copies of originals were used instead.  Concerning the fact
that a lot of HIP Beethoven recording has been done on either a Broadwood or
an Erard, he also quoted WS Newman in saying that Beethoven was actually
quite dissatisfied with both his Erard and Broadwood and maintained allegiance
with the Viennese action pianos (Schantz, Graf, Streicher etc.).   Unfortunately
few modern pianos resemble the Viennese instruments, and most, including
Steinway and Bechstein, are in design descendents from Anglo-French
instruments such as Erard and Broadwood. 

In any case Bilson thought using modern instruments
to play Beethoven can be a plain stylistic mistake. 
His quote (Early Music October 1982, pp. 518-9) is as follows:
The Brendel recording he referred to is op. 110
on the Vox label (second movement, bars 42-58).

"(M)odern piano, however, develops each note much
more slowly than would an early 19th-century piano; so in order to get
short, breathless left-hand crotchets Brendel has to
play them considerably louder, with the result that the
right-hand passage is obscured each time a left-hand
note is sounded....

"Steinways, Bluethners and Bechsteins have, over the years, given
us a very false idea of, for example, what a Beethoven
sforzando should sound like; for the modern piano has
no real sforzando, it only has loud notes. As a result, we
have become used to sudden shifts of dynamic that are
quite different from those of Beethoven's conception;
and it is to understand this that we need Streichers and
Grafs."

Those who have found HIP Beethoven to be blechworthy will probably continue to think so,
but at least others will see that it is more than just a hype or an ideology...

[Lady Chatterley]

HIP is too broad an area to like or dislike as a whole.  HIPsters don't present a uniform front.  Just look at some other threads and you'll see lively discussion/chair throwing involving different HIP recordings.

Don't knock over the candle sticks!

[FideLeo]

Don't knock over the candle sticks!

Candlesticks!  How romantic (for a modern tryst that is)!

[Gurn Blanston]

Goerge,
I DO hope you haven't abandoned your lovely thread! It's just getting interesting!



----------------
Now playing: Bia 406 Op 55 Symphony #3 in Eb (HIP) - Les Concert de Nations / Jordi Savall - Bia 406 Op 55 Symphony #3 in Eb 2nd mvmt - Marche funebre: Adagio assai

[prémont]

I feel HIP is an attempt to approximate an historical style. I don't think it's possible to recreate an historical style in absolute terms (100% correct), but I do feel it is possible to come closer to that ideal and that efforts to that effect bring me closer to the composer.

Yes, I would express this in a similar manner. "Closer to the composer " would to me mean "closer to what the composer probably had in mind", since most of the composers we think of here were practical musicians themselves with specific instruments in mind.
In other words HIP is so to say (since performing traditions are lost) a set of theoretical rules (surviving in old treatises) combined with the modern musicians practical experience with period instruments. To me true HIP implies for that reason use of period instruments.
But the musicians of former ages had of course the right to and indeed most often were expected to give his/her interpretation an individual stamp within the borders of the style, so we would probably see great diversity in interpretations even in former ages.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, I would express this in a similar manner. "Closer to the composer " would to me mean "closer to what the composer probably had in mind", since most of the composers we think of here were practical musicians themselves with specific instruments in mind.
In other words HIP is so to say (since performing traditions are lost) a set of theoretical rules (surviving in old treatises) combined with the modern musicians practical experience with period instruments. To me true HIP implies for that reason use of period instruments.
But the musicians of former ages had of course the right to and indeed most often were expected to give his/her interpretation an individual stamp within the borders of the style, so we would probably see great diversity in interpretations even in former ages.

I agree with all of your points. In fact, to address one of the most common complaints that I see about HIP, the more liberal interpretation that you, Que and I take here is precisely the opposite of that espoused by HIP purists, and is also the biggest turnoff for people with only a casual exposure. They feel (rightly) bullied into having to accept "pure" HIP as the only way a thinking person should ever listen to music. As if there were such a thing as "pure" HIP!! And the true logical oddity is that the extremists espouse, like a religion, something that is only a theoretical conception of how it might have been!   



----------------
Now playing: Haydn Flute Trios - Linde - Jappe - Junghanns - FJH Trio #2 in D for Flute, Cello & Piano Hob 15:16 1st mvmt

[Kullervo]

What is HIP and why do you like/dislike it?

I don't know, but I do know it involves somehow vibrato and the lack of it.

[George]

Goerge,
I DO hope you haven't abandoned your lovely thread! It's just getting interesting!

I am watching from the sidelines.   

[FideLeo]

I don't know, but I do know it involves somehow vibrato and the lack of it.

Non-HIP, on the other hand, involves LOTS of vibrato and NO lack of it.