The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Mandryka]

Haven't heard it but I think calling it as such is redundant. Each and every performance, even that of the most fanatical HIP adherent, is exactly that: a reinterpretation of the piece in question by the artist in question.

OK, clever. The problems of identity really are fundamental.  I want to be able to say that some (re)interpretations are further way from whatever it was that the composer created than others, some so far away that it ceases to be performance of the same piece of music, it's a transformation.


As I'm typing I'm aware that I just haven't done enough thinking about these difficult metaphysical questions. And I don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves.

[Marc]

I think Marc, that of all people you understood what I meant. I said I have no problems with the fact that people have different tastes. But it is my conviction that Bach and all other composers, that composed for the instruments they knew, it should be played on those instruments.
I am not the only one who thinks like this. Let's take the Martini Church organ. As long as the pipes are used that where there when it was build it is acceptable to me. But the additions are not. Masaaki Suzuki in a live concert proved my point, that you cannot play Bach with all the added pipes of the 19th century.
I must be allowed to have my opinion, like others insist on theirs.
And then being attacked by this guy called Madiel who kindly informs me that my understanding of English is crap, and that I am a ignoramus in understanding what is written hurts beyond imagination. All the reviews I have written for third parties, never complained about this.

I know Harry, I think our tastes are far more similar compared to f.i. the preferences of Florestan and yours truly. But that's not exactly my point. Apologies if I was a bit unclear.
If someone talks about the use of instrumentation in a comment or review, I most certainly do not understand the word 'atrocity'. I even dislike it. That's probably because personally I do not have a conviction in how music SHOULD be played.
I only have my preferences (yes, I do ), but I agree with member Maestro267 that old music should also be enjoyed/played on modern instruments. Even though I prefer the 'oldies' myself.

It's great that other people agree with your conviction that baroque music SHOULD be played on baroque instruments and if not, it's an atrocity. But I don't. (And plenty of others don't either, FWIW.)

Besides this, I do not understand your Suzuki comment about "all the added pipes of the 19th century" of the Martini organ. Since the reconstruction/restoration by Jürgen Ahrend in 1977-1984, the organ contains of about 50 stops in total. Only two small 19th century registers are left, one by Lohman and one by Van Oeckelen. Ahrend did not remove them, because they matched very well with the older renaissance and baroque registers. The rest of the 19th and 20th century registers were indeed removed, and replaced by reconstructions of earlier material (1740 and before).
So, on this particular instrument, it's just impossible to ruin a baroque piece with "all the added pipes of the 19th century". They simply aren't there.

I do not think your comparison hits the nail on the head. It is clear that the reconstruction of old organs must imply a lot of compromises partly because our intimate knowledge about the old organs are fragmentary (e.g. how were this and this organ precisely tuned?) and also often for financial reasons. And even if a Johann Silbermann sounds a little different from a Gottfried Silbermann we are talking about organs from the same period and both (more or less) with a French influenced sound, which was en vogue at that time. But a concert grand does not imply any compromises at all, it is a completely new instrument, which was totally unknown to Bach.

Musicological sources from the Baroque age and organological evidence tell us a lot about, how the Baroque musicians performed their music, maybe one half of what we would like to know. But on the other hand it also tells us something about how the Baroque musicians did not perform their music. A harpsichord (and an organ too) has not the option to vary the dynamics of individual notes. This can be  done on a piano. And most pianists I have heard fiddle with the dynamics all the time. I find this tendency very distracting, but also seen from an objective point of view this way of playing is not in accordance with Baroque style, and it changes the musical statement in a romantic direction. Like playing Bach on a romatic organ and using swell and "rollschweller" in excess. I have since long preferred as authentic instruments as possible and a style of playing at least not contradicting what we know of former ages style of playing, but I am not a fanatic, and of course many compromises need to be done before music is made. It is not so much the concert grand as such I object against (even if I prefer it used for piano music). But it is the pianists, who think they have to "modernise" and distort the music to make it better understood by the listeners of to day. But what is this they possibly understand? Has this much to do with the music in question?

I agree with almost everything, and the organ comparison of the Silbermanns wasn't the best example (even though it was enlightning to read about Kooiman's changed opinion of the Alsace instruments), but I would never call Bach on a Grand Piano an 'atrocity'.

I mean, Ivo Janssen plays Bach on a Japanese (Yamaha) Grand, for heaven's sake. They make motorbikes, too, btw, and electric guitars. They make almost everything, maybe even mechanical toy dolls and toy pianists. But Janssen's choice to play Bach on this piano is NOT an atrocity to me. It's a proof that Bach can be very well played on a very modern instrument, even without adding eccentricities to make it sound 'fake' baroque (like Gould sometimes tried to do). So yes, it's not a baroque instrument, but I truly love to listen to it. I also like to listen to Nikolayeva sometimes, or Dinnerstein, or Tipo, or S. Richter, et cetera and et al. Again, in my humble opinion they did not commit an atrocity.

To write that Bach played on a Grand is an atrocity and that his music should only be played on baroque instruments, sounds to much like a Bach ban on pianists to me. Probably many HIPsters would agree with that. Well, as I stated earlier, I do not have convictions , but I'm most definitely against bans based on convictions.

Call me liberal.
(All right then, there you have a conviction. )

[North Star]

Arranging Bach for a piano is fine by me (and the results often enjoyable), but that's not at all same as putting seatbelts  in your vintage car. It's putting a V8 where there used to be a horse or two. Just as performing it on an appropriate instrument (that is in good condition, in an appropriate space) is like taking off 3 mm (1/8")  of yellow varnish and a layer of dirt away from a Rembrandt.

[Traverso]

I know Harry, I think our tastes are far more similar compared to f.i. the preferences of Florestan and yours truly. But that's not exactly my point. Apologies if I was a bit unclear.
If someone talks about the use of instrumentation in a comment or review, I most certainly do not understand the word 'atrocity'. I even dislike it. That's probably because personally I do not have a conviction in how music SHOULD be played.
I only have my preferences (yes, I do ), but I agree with member Maestro267 that old music should also be enjoyed/played on modern instruments. Even though I prefer the 'oldies' myself.

It's great that other people agree with your conviction that baroque music SHOULD be played on baroque instruments and if not, it's an atrocity. But I don't. (And plenty of others don't either, FWIW.)

Besides this, I do not understand your Suzuki comment about "all the added pipes of the 19th century" of the Martini organ. Since the reconstruction/restoration by Jürgen Ahrend in 1977-1984, the organ contains of about 50 stops in total. Only two small 19th century registers are left, one by Lohman and one by Van Oeckelen. Ahrend did not remove them, because they matched very well with the older renaissance and baroque registers. The rest of the 19th and 20th century registers were indeed removed, and replaced by reconstructions of earlier material (1740 and before).
So, on this particular instrument, it's just impossible to ruin a baroque piece with "all the added pipes of the 19th century". They simply aren't there.

I agree with almost everything, and the organ comparison of the Silbermanns wasn't the best example (even though it was enlightning to read about Kooiman's changed opinion of the Alsace instruments), but I would never call Bach on a Grand Piano an 'atrocity'.

I mean, Ivo Janssen plays Bach on a Japanese (Yamaha) Grand, for heaven's sake. They make motorbikes, too, btw, and electric guitars. They make almost everything, maybe even mechanical toy dolls and toy pianists. But Janssen's choice to play Bach on this piano is NOT an atrocity to me. It's a proof that Bach can be very well played on a very modern instrument, even without adding eccentricities to make it sound 'fake' baroque (like Gould sometimes tried to do). So yes, it's not a baroque instrument, but I truly love to listen to it. I also like to listen to Nikolayeva sometimes, or Dinnerstein, or Tipo, or S. Richter, et cetera and et al. Again, in my humble opinion they did not commit an atrocity.

To write that Bach played on a Grand is an atrocity and that his music should only be played on baroque instruments, sounds to much like a Bach ban on pianists to me. Probably many HIPsters would agree with that. Well, as I stated earlier, I do not have convictions , but I'm most definitely against bans based on convictions.

Call me liberal.
(All right then, there you have a conviction. )

Here a present for the true liberal 


http://www.youtube.com/v/2vz_1lC51z0

[Karl Henning]

(Consider someone who tries to play a Chopin sonata on bagpipes . . . )

No, I refuse

[André]

No, I refuse

The Goldbergs on the accordion, then ?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6M3RI_fU#fauxfullscreen

[kyjo]

HIPP is a fascinating side-view for those who are into that, but it should be nothing more than that. Music is a living art form; each time a piece is performed it is born anew, with all the unique interpretive elements that the performers bring to the work. Instruments have evolved over time, so Bach (eg.) should be allowed to be enjoyed on modern instruments. It doesn't have to be a museum artefact of the time it was written. It can be, of course...but it doesn't have to.

Very much agree with this.

[Mandryka]

During the Notenkraker actions (late 1960s) this was also the problem of Bernard Haitink. Frans Brüggen shouted to him that each and every note of Mozart played by the Concertgebouw Orkest was a lie. Well, at least Brüggen matured and admitted he was (young and) wrong. He even became chief conductor of the Radio Kamerorkest (playing on modern instruments), succeeding... Ton Koopman!

It's a really interesting, this word lie. Because it suggests that some performances are less truthful than others.

Some people think that what you say is true if it corresponds to reality . Maybe Bruggen's idea was that the truthful performer makes music which corresponds to what the composer made. But I'm not sure this can really be made sense of.

Thousands of concerts ought to be deleted. If Bart Jacobs uses stops from the 19th century Bovenwerk in the Der Aa Kerk tonight, whilst playing Buxtehude or Bach, he should be told that he's committed an atrocity. I also should have told so to Bernard Bartelink and Sjoerd Ruisch (among many others), who dared to play Bach on the Maarschalkerweerd organ in the Jozefkerk, Groningen. This organ produces a sound that doesn't come close to any 'baroque' sound at all, no matter what stops you pull.

These people are I think pretty evidently doing something which is (and I can only use metaphors at the moment) unaligned, out of kilter, with an aspect of the composer's creation. Something which does not correspond with what the composer made. a misrepresentation.   It's very hard to say this without these metaphors.

Travesty is another relevant idea, as is corruption, relevant in some way as yet not totally clear to me.

[Mandryka]

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

Is Bjorn Schmelzer's music making sometimes an atrocity?

[Marc]

Here a present for the true liberal 


http://www.youtube.com/v/2vz_1lC51z0

Thank you.

The Goldbergs on the accordion, then ?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6M3RI_fU#fauxfullscreen

I'm not fond of Bach on a steel guitar, but peace to the executor, he's apparently a musician who plays this instrument & has a desire to play Bach and, who knows, he is having the time of his life, and a lot of listeners love it.
I myself a.o. do have recordings of Bach on a piano Grand, and on an acoustic guitar, even on saxophones and on the accordion, and I like it. I even have Laibach playing their 'own' Kunst der Fuge (good fun, also tiring, not really interesting). And yes, I do have 'Erbarme dich' performed by female vocal soloists. All atrocities, I know. I'm totally into the atrocity exhibition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AqeqAQ1ILI

[Florestan]

I mean, Ivo Janssen plays Bach on a Japanese (Yamaha) Grand, for heaven's sake. They make motorbikes, too, btw, and electric guitars. They make almost everything, maybe even mechanical toy dolls and toy pianists. But Janssen's choice to play Bach on this piano is NOT an atrocity to me. It's a proof that Bach can be very well played on a very modern instrument, even without adding eccentricities to make it sound 'fake' baroque (like Gould sometimes tried to do). So yes, it's not a baroque instrument, but I truly love to listen to it. I also like to listen to Nikolayeva sometimes, or Dinnerstein, or Tipo, or S. Richter, et cetera and et al. Again, in my humble opinion they did not commit an atrocity.

To write that Bach played on a Grand is an atrocity and that his music should only be played on baroque instruments, sounds to much like a Bach ban on pianists to me. Probably many HIPsters would agree with that. Well, as I stated earlier, I do not have convictions , but I'm most definitely against bans based on convictions.

Call me liberal.
(All right then, there you have a conviction. )

Very well said. Greetings from a fellow liberal. 

Question(s) for our dear HIP friends: how far back in time should a pianist be allowed to go? who is the earliest composer he may play? same questions but substituting "modern orchestras / ensembles" (say, Royal Concertgebouw Orkest, or Ibragimova/Tiberghien) for "pianists". TIA for your replies.

[Marc]

It's a really interesting, this word lie. Because it suggests that some performances are less truthful than others.

Some people think that what you say is true if it corresponds to reality . Maybe Bruggen's idea was that the truthful performer makes music which corresponds to what the composer made. But I'm not sure this can really be made sense of.

These people are I think pretty evidently doing something which is (and I can only use metaphors at the moment) unaligned, out of kilter, with an aspect of the composer's creation. Something which does not correspond with what the composer made. a misrepresentation.   It's very hard to say this without these metaphors.

Travesty is another relevant idea, as is corruption, relevant in some way as yet not totally clear to me.

Brüggen & co. meant that Mozart played on modern instruments just can't be right. It's plain wrong by definition and the Concertgebouw should stop doing it.

By the way, Bernard Bartelink (bless him) playing Bach in the Groningen Jozefkerk did not sound like a travesty at all to me. He did a great job. Even though, whilst listening and enjoying, I was thinking: man, would I love to hear this grand old seigneur (he died in 2014) in the Martinikerk!

I think I'm gonna quit now, though. I find it hard to debate with strict HIPsters, because I am sort of a HIPster myself. I feel like Judas Iscarioth.
It also feels like debating with Christians who consider the Bible as a book of Law, not of Inspiration.
(I know, bad comparison in many ways... I'm not even a sort of Christian myself. ... or am I?)

If a pianist/accordionist/saxophonist manages to move his/her (un)informed listeners in a concert hall by playing Bach for them, then it's not an atrocity or travesty to me.
That's my final word.

(No, it isn't. )

[Harry]

Is Bjorn Schmelzer's music making sometimes an atrocity?

No! Maybe it is to your ears, but for me it is not. And there is no need to highlight the word atrocity, to start a new fire again.

[Mandryka]

No! Maybe it is to your ears, but for me it is not. And there is no need to highlight the word atrocity, to start a new fire again.

He doesn't seem to be particularly HIP, Bjorn. But maybe I see more clearly now, when you say XXX is an atrocity, you just mean you don't like it -- is that right? You're not saying anything about the performance per se, you're talking about yourself, your response to the performance.

[Maestro267]

I see we've all been kicked out of WAYLTN... 

[Florestan]

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

This is your favorite comparison but it is problematic.

Painting is a case of "what you see is what you get". After the painting has been cleaned you see it as it really was back then, as an objective reality that confronts you directly without any intermediation. The interpretation is yours, and yours only.

Music, on the contrary, comes to you by way of the performers's intermediation (unless you are yourself the performer, or you are reading the score) and this intermediation actually adds its own subjectivity to that of the composer himself. Even the most rigid HIP performance offers you somebody's else interpretation (Mandryka pointed out the fact that even within HIP there are large differences in performances --- well, they come exactly from this inescapable performer's subjectivity). What you hear is not the music as it really was, but the music as the performer imagines it to have been, and a cursory glance at the WAYLT thread shows that Leonhardt's imagination is different from Hantai's which is different from Stefano Molardi's. Who of them, I ask you then, has it right? Who plays the music as it was? I say that none of them, because music as it was is a purely theoretical concept whose validity is limited to the score. As soon as there is performance, there is interpretation and thereby the very idea of music as it was vanishes.

Oh, and I hope that by "presenting them in lighting conditions similar to what they were intended for" you don't mean, or propose, that museums be candlelit. 

[North Star]

This is your favorite comparison but it is problematic.

Painting is a case of "what you see is what you get". After the painting has been cleaned you see it as it really was back then, as an objective reality that confronts you directly without any intermediation. The interpretation is yours, and yours only.

Music, on the contrary, comes to you by way of the performers's intermediation (unless you are yourself the performer, or you are reading the score) and this intermediation actually adds its own subjectivity to that of the composer himself. Even the most rigid HIP performance offers you somebody's else interpretation (Mandryka pointed out the fact that even within HIP there are large differences in performances --- well, they come exactly from this inescapable performer's subjectivity). What you hear is not the music as it really was, but the music as the performer imagines it to have been, and a cursory glance at the WAYLT thread shows that Leonhardt's imagination is different from Hantai's which is different from Stefano Molardi's. Who of them, I ask you then, has it right? Who plays the music as it was? I say that none of them, because music as it was is a purely theoretical concept whose validity is limited to the score. As soon as there is performance, there is interpretation and thereby the very idea of music as it was vanishes.

Yes, when we hear or interpret music, there are of course more layers of subjectivity than there are in studying old paintings. I don't think that makes my comparison less apt than tuning up a car, even if you need to give a larger exponent for the interpretation factor, or to use two interpretation factors.x³ or x²y instead of just x. But having more levels of subjective interpretation also emphasizes how important it is that each of those layers has as a starting point a knowledge of the possibilities for what the music could have sounded like originally, and obviously there is no particular way that the musician "imagines it to have been", since they know as well as you do that a performance is always going to sound different because of all kinds of variables. Instead, they imagine the range of possibilities for what the music could have been, and try to work within that range - or deviate from it.

Oh, and I hope that by "presenting them in lighting conditions similar to what they were intended for" you don't mean, or propose, that museums be candlelit. 

No, but electric lighting with appropriate colour temperature that isn't excessively bright.

[Florestan]

there is no particular way that the musician "imagines it to have been", since they know as well as you do that a performance is always going to sound different because of all kinds of variables. Instead, they imagine the range of possibilities for what the music could have been, and try to work within that range - or deviate from it.

Nothing I can disagree with here.

[bwv 1080]

HIP of course began as a negation of a particular performance practice - the mid 20th century view of baroque and classical music through the lens of Romanticism.  What to replace that with is an open debate - for example, how free was the rhythm in baroque pieces - the early hip stuff tended to be rigid metronome-like interpetations reacting against use is romantic inspired rubato while now you see much more openness to a freer approach.  Now that the both the naive romantic treatment of earlier music and the rigid first wave HIP mentality belong to a previous generation, there is not an either / or debate just a situation where performers can make informed aesthetic choices

[Gurn Blanston]

Question(s) for our dear HIP friends: how far back in time should a pianist be allowed to go? who is the earliest composer he may play? same questions but substituting "modern orchestras / ensembles" (say, Royal Concertgebouw Orkest, or Ibragimova/Tiberghien) for "pianists". TIA for your replies.

Schumann.