The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

We agree on something many a thing.

There, fixed. 

[jochanaan]

Every once in a while, musicians (composers, performers, critics, and audiences) need to re-examine their art, simply because traditions build up that may or may not have anything to do with what, say, Bach or Mahler wrote.  (Toscanini had the reputation of "making music exactly as the composer wrote it", but even he changed scores and did things his own way.)  It may be true that "we can't get to what the composer intended"--but that doesn't let us off trying.

The best HIP-PI recordings have a clarity and excitement that was often lacking in earlier performances.  Compare (if you can), for example, the early I Musici recording of Vivaldi's The Seasons with one by, say, Ensemble 415; the earlier recording sounds downright soupy compared to E415's, and the latter has even more personality, flexibility and drama.

But, at the same time, we shouldn't be prejudiced against earlier recordings.  People and groups such as Paul Sacher and the Basel Chamber Orchestra were sometimes as well-versed in Baroque performance practices as any HIPster of today, as evidenced in the classic Sacher/Basel Brandenburg set.  (Their ornamentations are flawless and seemingly spontaneous; and their harpsichordist, Eduard Muller, revived the historically accurate tradition of adding an "improvisation" before the two chords between the first and final movements.  By today's standards, their tempos are distressingly slow, but some of the things I've read suggest that their tempos might actually be more in line with actual Baroque practices than today's flying tempos.  In almost every way, that classic recording is a historically accurate performance, though on mostly modern instruments.)  I'm also very fond of the 1959 recording of The Play of Daniel by Noah Greenberg and the New York Pro Musica.

[Wakefield]

An all-time favourite!

Apart from the performance, what distinguishes Angela Hewitt as an excellent musician is the liner notes she writes for her recordings: informative, wittty and not too technical, they are a delight to read.

... and a great dose of pride, too. I have heard/read some interviews, and she seems quite disdainful towards other heyboard instruments and other performers. That said, I love her disks. 

[Florestan]

... and a great dose of pride, too. I have heard/read some interviews, and she seems quite disdainful towards other heyboard instruments and other performers.

Could you please provide some links? You made me curious about that.

[Wakefield]

Could you please provide some links? You made me curious about that.

I was afraid you will ask for that! But I will need some research to recall where I read/heard/watched it. BTW, I think her (sort of) hostility towards the HIP movement is quite similar to your own attitude, my dear friend!    

[Florestan]

I was afraid you will ask for that! But I will need some research to recall where I read/heard/watched it. BTW, I think her (sort of) hostility towards the HIP movement is quite similar to your own attitude, my dear friend!    

Hey, I'm not hostile to HIP. What I am indeed opposed to is turning what is simply one of the many legitimate approaches into an all-encompassing, "totalitarian" ideology according to which certain works and indeed whole eras in the history of music should be forever kept within some narrow confines regarding the choice of instruments and the performance styles.  I am not opposed to Bach on the harpsichord, I am opposed to proscribing Bach on the piano. 

[Harry]

What I am indeed opposed to is turning what is simply one of the many legitimate approaches into an all-encompassing, "totalitarian" ideology according to which certain works and indeed whole eras in the history of music should be forever kept within some narrow confines regarding the choice of instruments and the performance styles.

That is exactly how it should be. Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for. Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

[prémont]

I am opposed to proscribing Bach on the piano...

....and I am against prescribing the piano for Bach. 

[prémont]

That is exactly how it should be. Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for. Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

+1

[ritter]

.... Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

...but, often, a wonderful one! 

[Wakefield]

....and I am against prescribing the piano for Bach. 

Well, I am adscribing to this remark. 

[Florestan]

Keep the music for the instruments it was composed for.

And thereby make the works museum pieces... 

Bach on a grand is an atrocity.

We must have dramatically different ears. This is one of the sublimest things I've ever heard.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XVAl47CpwOQ

Actually, my main objection is not even over the choice of the instruments --- and I stress choice, which HIP doesn't make room for. It's this whole idea that simply by using period instruments and HIP the music is heard exactly as those people back then heard it that I find problematic. How one hears any given music depends on a lot of extra musical factors and for all the abundence of HIP recordings and concerts what we conspicuously miss is historical ears and mentality. Take Haydn, for instance. As Gurn has showed in his wonderful series of essays, the reactions his music ellicited from the contemporary audience differs markedly, dramatically even in some cases, from our own. According to the HIP ideology, if the instruments and the performing style are all historically accurate this should not be the case and we should be able to experience the music exactly as it was experienced back then --- except that we don't and can't, because our worldview and cultural environment are galaxies apart from those of Haydn's original audience(s) and it's only with much effort and limited results that we can get in their minds. Bottom line, whether one prefers the harpsichord or the piano, or larger or smaller forces it's much more a matter of personal taste, education and aesthetic sensibility among performers and audiences alike than of any objective and intrinsic superiority of one choice over the other. What makes a performance great is not the instruments but the artistic vision, integrity and committment of those who use them.

[Harry]

And thereby make the works museum pieces... 

We must have dramatically different ears. This is one of the sublimest things I've ever heard.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XVAl47CpwOQ

Bottom line, whether one prefers the harpsichord or the piano, or larger or smaller forces it's much more a matter of personal taste, education and aesthetic sensibility among performers and audiences alike than of any objective and intrinsic superiority of one choice over the other. What makes a performance great is not the instruments but the artistic vision, integrity and committment of those who use them.

Museum pieces is an odd remark, as if you belittle the music because to your ears they are museum pieces
Personal tastes, well yes...education and aesthetic sensibility, I take offence by these words, because what you are basically saying is, if you do not have those requirements you are not able to appreciate in the way you appreciate them?
And what words you are using, it's like you want to show off that you know better, by saying "Objective and intrinsic superiority" ehhh, I am simply saying what I said before, the music should be performed on the instruments it was composed for. I accept that people have different views, and that's okay, but since we cannot ask the composers what they think, I say let's stick to what they meant to say and not fall into the trap of prettifying the music simply because we have superior instruments at our disposal.

[North Star]

And thereby make the works museum pieces... 

We must have dramatically different ears. This is one of the sublimest things I've ever heard.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XVAl47CpwOQ

Actually, my main objection is not even over the choice of the instruments --- and I stress choice, which HIP doesn't make room for. It's this whole idea that simply by using period instruments and HIP the music is heard exactly as those people back then heard it that I find problematic. How one hears any given music depends on a lot of extra musical factors and for all the abundence of HIP recordings and concerts what we conspicuously miss is historical ears and mentality. Take Haydn, for instance. As Gurn has showed in his wonderful series of essays, the reactions his music ellicited from the contemporary audience differs markedly, dramatically even in some cases, from our own. According to the HIP ideology, if the instruments and the performing style are all historically accurate this should not be the case and we should be able to experience the music exactly as it was experienced back then --- except that we don't and can't, because our worldview and cultural environment are galaxies apart from those of Haydn's original audience(s) and it's only with much effort and limited results that we can get in their minds. Bottom line, whether one prefers the harpsichord or the piano, or larger or smaller forces it's much more a matter of personal taste, education and aesthetic sensibility among performers and audiences alike than of any objective and intrinsic superiority of one choice over the other. What makes a performance great is not the instruments but the artistic vision, integrity and committment of those who use them.

Can you cite a source for this claim that "HIP ideology" does indeed claim to be able to reproduce the exact effect that the music had on its original audience? As far as I remember, musicians associated with HIP have emphasized studying the instruments, playing techniques and styles, and acoustics to better understand how the music was played, whereas the opponents of HIP often write about how we don't wear powdered wigs anymore, and that we've heard Beethoven, Stravinsky and Beatles. HIP is obviously not some secret recipe that, when applied, makes all music magically sound right in the one and only correct way, but objecting to HIP is like objecting to the restoration of paintings from Rembrandt etc. - Cleaning the paintings and presenting them in lighting conditions similar to what they were intended for doesn't make the viewer a 17th century Dutch merchant, but it does give a more accurate view of the work of art, except that as a bonus you still get to keep all the old Romanticized versions, and keep as much of that tradition as you want in your new performances.

[Florestan]

Museum pieces is an odd remark, as if you belittle the music because to your ears they are museum pieces
Personal tastes, well yes...education and aesthetic sensibility, I take offence by these words, because what you are basically saying is, if you do not have those requirements you are not able to appreciate in the way you appreciate them?
And what words you are using, it's like you want to show off that you know better, by saying "Objective and intrinsic superiority" ehhh,

You either completely misunderstood my points or you grossly misrepresent them in order to pick a fight with me. Either way I'm not going to pursue the matter any more.

but since we cannot ask the composers what they think, I say let's stick to what they meant to say

The first part of the sentence directly contradicts the second, for if we cannot know what the composers thought, then how could we stick to what they meant to say? We can't ask Bach what he thought in composing the Goldberg Variations yet we are supposed to stick to what he meant to say with them? It's quite confusing.

[prémont]

...... because we have superior instruments at our disposal.

What?

But else I agree fully with your post.

[Harry]

You either completely misunderstood my points or you grossly misrepresent them in order to pick a fight with me. Either way I'm not going to pursue the matter any more.

See that is what I mean, you feel yourself superior to others, for your arguments are better as mine or others. So you revert to saying that I again misunderstood, (well maybe I am stupid, Andrei) or grossly misrepresent in order to pick a fight with you, ( Christ, are you a little boy?)
I am to old to pick a fight with such eloquent youngsters like you. And then when you see it will not lead to the desired result you wish, you stop communicating. Well my advice is do not argue for argues sake, and slam us all dead with your great capabilities in the English language.

The first part of the sentence directly contradicts the second, for if we cannot know what the composers thought, then how could we stick to what they meant to say? We can't ask Bach what he thought in composing the Goldberg Variations yet we are supposed to stick to what he meant to say with them? It's quite confusing.

See that is what I mean, you feel yourself superior to others, for your arguments are better as mine or others. So you revert to saying that I again misunderstood, (well maybe I am stupid, Andrei) or grossly misrepresent in order to pick a fight with you, ( Christ, are you a little boy?)
I am to old to pick a fight with such eloquent youngsters like you. And then when you see it will not lead to the desired result you wish, you stop communicating. Well my advice is do not argue for argues sake, and slam us all dead with your great capabilities in the English language


Not confusing to me, but your mind is differently wired I guess. What worries me is that you constantly underestimate me and other people.

[Harry]

What?

But else I agree fully with your post.

Sorry I meant that in a technical way: to my ears the instruments of old are honey to my ears

[Florestan]

you constantly underestimate me and other people.

I beg your pardon? 

[Harry]

I beg your pardon? 

O, common Andrei, be the friendly person I knew of old, there is too little time arguing, better listen to music.