The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[FideLeo]

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!   

But who are these "extremists"?  Perhaps a name or two so we can identify them?  I know over-zealous use of the keyword "authenticity" or "authentic" to indicate HIP in media or press often managed (and still manages) to raise both eyebrows (and sometimes hell ) in "traditionalist" listeners. 

[Que]

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!  

But who are these "extremists"?  Perhaps a name or two so we can identify them?  I know over-zealous use of the keyword "authenticity" or "authentic" to indicate HIP in media or press often managed (and still manages) to raise both eyebrows (and sometimes hell ) in "traditionalist" listeners. 

HIP has certainly an image problem, which is a real pity.
I think this is because in trying to reconstruct historical performance practices, research is needed and academic debate on the results. And indeed there are sometimes different opinions on musical issues and various HIP performers choose different methods and approaches.
All this gives HIP the image of being "dogmatic", but it's all just a (necessary) means to an end: creating musical approaches in which the music itself makes sense en can be enjoyed to the fullest. And that's the main thing, not the theoretical issues behind it!

BTW I don't think - in general - the image of nonbelievers being bullied isn't correct at all. I've personally experienced more antagonism in the opposite direction: against HIP.

Q


PS Could we move this thread to "General Music Discussion" ? (Instead of "Classical Music for Beginners")

[Mark]

BTW I don't think - in general - the image of nonbelievers being bullied is correct at all. I've personally experienced more antagonism in the opposite direction: against HIP.

Q

Bit like vegetarianism, then. The number of meat-eaters I've met who claim all veggies are out to 'convert' them in an aggressive way is unbelievable. More incredible still is that it's these same carnivores who exhibit all the aggression against vegetarians, as though getting in their retaliation first. I see some of the HIP vs. non-HIP debates turning out the same way, with the 'traditionalists' ending up far more defensive than their supposedly 'dogmatic' HIP counterparts.

[FideLeo]

Bit like vegetarianism, then.

This food analogy is really interesting. Actually, if one reads the usegroup for classical recordings (rec.music.classical.recordings=rmcr) often, it will be seen that the expression "crunchy granola" comes up fairly frequently, almost always in association with various HIP performances.

google search results

But that is a bit of improvement already as far as I am concerned.  Worse I once read in Gramophone a review that compares Norrington's Brahms Symphony 2 to chalk as opposed to Barbirolli's cheese in the same music. 
Well I like the offerings from Monteux and Munch but I also find the Norrington fun to listen to say the least.

[Fëanor]

Why would a HIP performance have more vitality than a modern interpretation? That makes no sense to me.

I'm on learning curve myself, but it seems to me, from what I've heard so far, that even Beethoven is better in HIP.

Why should it be mysterious that music will sound best played as the composer would have heard it?  (Or in the case of the later Beethoven, imagined it.)

[Larry Rinkel]

"Why should it be mysterious that music will sound best played as the composer would have heard it?" wonders Feanor. Consider these paradoxes:

On the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt 60-CD set of Bach cantatas, boy sopranos most of the time are used for the solo arias and all the time for the choruses. In massed chorus, the boys generally sound okay. In the solo passages, they can range from quite good to (variously) squally, out of tune, weak, shrill, etc., and I can't help picturing a group of terrified, embarrassed 10-12 year olds forced by conductors with an HIP "vision" to be put through extreme vocal torture both for themselves and us. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible (or perhaps not) that the boys we are hearing on these recordings are superior to the boys Bach would have had at his own disposal.

In addition on the same set, most of the solo alto arias are taken by a male countertenor - a voice type that was born in the English cathedral choir, and which has nothing to do with any sound Bach would have encountered in his own churches. So if you're going to be HIP, why not use boy altos, a voice type Bach would have recognized?

And then again on the same set, two of the great solo soprano cantatas (51 and 199) are sung by female sopranos - apparently because H/L broke down and realized that the bravura and emotional power in these two works (respectively) could not have been handled adequately by pre-pubescent males. So for these cantatas at least, HIP be damned. The results, as it happens, are so much superior musically to the usual boy sopranos in these recordings that one wonders why H/L didn't abandon their HIP dogma and let the women take part in the entire series.

So here we are: HIP practice and modern practice all mixed together in a supposedly HIP venture, with modern practice in the case of the solo soprano yielding superior results. Bach had a good reason for using boys: women were forbidden to sing in church. Does that mean we have to accept the conditions he had to settle for, or should we do what's best for the music? (Obviously in many other cases the conditions Bach had to work under may well be those that are best for the music, too.)

[Mark]

Bach had a good reason for using boys: women were forbidden to sing in church. Does that mean we have to accept the conditions he had to settle for, or should we do what's best for the music? (Obviously in many other cases the conditions Bach had to work under may well be those that are best for the music, too.)

A case of, 'Let common sense prevail', methinks.

[FideLeo]

In addition on the same set, most of the solo alto arias are taken by a male countertenor - a voice type that was born in the English cathedral choir, and which has nothing to do with any sound Bach would have encountered in his own churches. So if you're going to be HIP, why not use boy altos, a voice type Bach would have recognized?

Just to clarify, there were indeed professional falsettists active in 1700's Germany and in Bach's circle no less (see Tom Hens comment (March 4, 2006)in Bach cantata website discussion) of both soprano and alto ranges, so "countertenors" (or equivalent voice types) were NOT really something born of and used in the Anglican tradition only.   

More discussion on the Alto singers used by Bach in Leipzig

[Larry Rinkel]

Just to clarify, there were indeed professional falsettists active in 1700's Germany and in Bach's circle no less (see Tom Hens comment (March 4, 2006)in Bach cantata website discussion) of both soprano and alto ranges, so "countertenors" (or equivalent voice types) were NOT really something born of and used in the Anglican tradition only.   

More discussion on the Alto singers used by Bach in Leipzig

I don't know who Tom Hens is, but my source was Richard Taruskin (professor of music at Berkeley and author of the recent Oxford History of Music), in his book "Text and Act," p. 165, where he says specifically that the countertenor voice "was born in the English cathedral choir." Taruskin of course could be mistaken, but even if he is, the paradoxes and inconsistencies I've noted regarding the H/L Bach cantatas series still stand.

[Gurn Blanston]

But who are these "extremists"?  Perhaps a name or two so we can identify them?  I know over-zealous use of the keyword "authenticity" or "authentic" to indicate HIP in media or press often managed (and still manages) to raise both eyebrows (and sometimes hell ) in "traditionalist" listeners. 

Somehow I get the impression that you think I'm talking about professional musicians or conductors or someone of that ilk. I'm not, actually, I'm talking about people on forums and the like who feel like it's their mission in life to spread the good word and who end up scaring off others with their rabidity. You and I have a mutual friend who has done that. I have known him for years and seen him absolutely thrash people who didn't buy into it. Fortunately he's better now, at least he is able to keep people to talk to. And he is but one of dozens that I've dealt with over the years. It is a lot easier to win over converts by giving them good, solid reasons for trying something out than it is by intimidating them into it.

Kinda like vegetarians...



----------------
Now playing: Cramer PC - London Mozart Players / Shelley  Shelley - Cramer Concerto #8 in d for Piano & Orchestra Op 70 1st mvmt

[Que]

On the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt 60-CD set of Bach cantatas, boy sopranos most of the time are used for the solo arias and all the time for the choruses. In massed chorus, the boys generally sound okay. In the solo passages, they can range from quite good to (variously) squally, out of tune, weak, shrill, etc., and I can't help picturing a group of terrified, embarrassed 10-12 year olds forced by conductors with an HIP "vision" to be put through extreme vocal torture both for themselves and us. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible (or perhaps not) that the boys we are hearing on these recordings are superior to the boys Bach would have had at his own disposal.

I'm afraid nature (or rather modern diet) has created an obstacle in using boy sopranos for diffult (solo) parts. The boys sopranos singing in Bach's time were probably older and therefore more trained and skilled:

It has been observed that boy sopranos in earlier times were, on average, somewhat older than in modern times. For example, Johann Sebastian Bach was considered to be an outstanding boy soprano until halfway through his sixteenth year, but for a male to sing soprano with an unchanged voice at that age is currently fairly uncommon in the developed world, where puberty tends to begin at younger ages (most likely due to differences in diet, including greater availability of proteins and vitamins). LINK

Q

[Mark]

Kinda like vegetarians...

Clearly, Gurn, you and I move in very different circles.

[FideLeo]

I don't know who Tom Hens is, but my source was Richard Taruskin (professor of music at Berkeley and author of the recent Oxford History of Music), in his book "Text and Act," p. 165, where he says specifically that the countertenor voice "was born in the English cathedral choir." Taruskin of course could be mistaken, but even if he is, the paradoxes and inconsistencies I've noted regarding the H/L Bach cantatas series still stand.

So countertenors were called differently outside of England - but that doesn't mean Bach would have not recognised the voice type of countertenor/male alto/falsettist, does it?  Just check out this person called Adam Immanuel Weldig in Weimar already, who befriended Bach and was an alto falsettist.

And why HIP shouldn't be without its paradoxes and inconsistencies?  Non-HIP is full of them.

[FideLeo]

I'm afraid nature (or rather modern diet) has created an obstacle in using boy sopranos for diffult (solo) parts. The boys sopranos singing in Bach's time were probably older and therefore more trained and skilled:

It has been observed that boy sopranos in earlier times were, on average, somewhat older than in modern times. For example, Johann Sebastian Bach was considered to be an outstanding boy soprano until halfway through his sixteenth year, but for a male to sing soprano with an unchanged voice at that age is currently fairly uncommon in the developed world, where puberty tends to begin at younger ages (most likely due to differences in diet, including greater availability of proteins and vitamins). LINK

Q

Exactly.  JSB's cantata 51 and 199 are now thought to have been written either for a soprano castrato (visiting from Dresden) or for a very capable sopranist (elder boy or adult) for these are truly virtuosic music that requires great technique and stamina.  H/L used a female soprano soloist to record both obviously because all the historically more appropriate options were not available to them.  If they were to do these again now, sopranists like Waschinki or Jaroussky may be able to give it a try. 

[FideLeo]

Kinda like vegetarians...

I love vegetarians...    

[Fëanor]

"Why should it be mysterious that music will sound best played as the composer would have heard it?" wonders Feanor. Consider these paradoxes:
....

So here we are: HIP practice and modern practice all mixed together in a supposedly HIP venture, with modern practice in the case of the solo soprano yielding superior results. Bach had a good reason for using boys: women were forbidden to sing in church. Does that mean we have to accept the conditions he had to settle for, or should we do what's best for the music? (Obviously in many other cases the conditions Bach had to work under may well be those that are best for the music, too.)

Thank you for your interesting information, not all of which I knew.  And your point, for instance, that poor boy soparnos may be replaced by compotent woman sopranos is well-taken by me.  On the other hand, what if very good boy sopranos were available?  Should they be rejected because their voices are relatively thin and vibratto-free?  I would say not.  To say the Bach could not use female singers but might have if he could have, (as some suggest), might be true, but it is pushing the "resources" argument too far.

More generally, if my understanding is correct, the performance resources available today are typically much better than was the case for Bach, et al., in their time and place.  It would be ridiculous to suggest that today's conductors ought to employ only second- or third-rate instrumentalists and singers because they are what the composer worked with.  However superior individual resources is no argument at all against use of historic scale of performance, instrument tuning, or type of instruments -- including boy sopranos, (or castrati for that matter  ).

[Larry Rinkel]

And why HIP shouldn't be without its paradoxes and inconsistencies?  Non-HIP is full of them.

Gurn has already answered that: because there are "people on forums and the like who feel like it's their mission in life to spread the good word and who end up scaring off others with their rabidity. You and I have a mutual friend who has done that. I have known him for years and seen him absolutely thrash people who didn't buy into it."

[BachQ]

Kinda like vegetarians...

The vegetarian/HIP nexus is clear: both demand a certain crisp freshness and an organic, holistic continuity in their respective products .......

[Lethevich]

The vegetarian/HIP nexus is clear: both demand a certain crisp freshness and an organic, holistic continuity in their respective products .......

I guess just like vegetables, some are scarier than others...

Norrington = Spirulina (better consumed in tablets than raw...)

[BachQ]

I guess just like vegetables, some are scarier than others...

Norrington = Spirulina (better consumed in tablets than raw...)

Here's Norrington distilled to tablet form ........ much better ......... :