The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[prémont]

Note the "should" part. I took the above to mean that you and Harry agreed on that no grand piano should be used for Bach. If I got you both wrong, I apologize.

I realised that this +1 was too unsubtle, and this was the reason why I elaborated and clarified my point of view a little later.

Well, misunderstandings can not be avoided in a forum like this with the participation of so many different nationalities. No offense taken on my part.

[Florestan]

misunderstandings can not be avoided in a forum like this with the participation of so many different nationalities.

So true.

No offense taken on my part.

Nor any one intended from my part.

[Traverso]

If I am one of those you refer to, I have to say, that you got me wrong. I am not complaining about the instruments as such (most instruments can't make music without human intervention) but about the pianists, who use their instruments to distort the music as they please. And it is actually possible to play baroque music in good style on a piano, but only a few master the task. That said, I prefer period instruments with their "limited" musical options, but I am not so radical as to exclude artists who play on modern instruments only for that reason.

Everything is said here.I prefer the harpsichord but I have also a very few cd's with Bach on the piano.I once heard a saxophone ensemble who played a motet by Desprez and I liked it but did not buy the CD.

I played Bach on the clarinet does that made me a crook ?

[Florestan]

I played Bach on the clarinet does that made me a crook ?

Atrocious. 

[Traverso]

Atrocious. 

No no ,not atrocious but very difficult so I desided to start playing Bach on the traverso.I love both instruments.Both have their pro and contras,playing the traverso caused me breathing problems.Nevertheless it gave me much joy.

[prémont]

I played Bach on the clarinet does that made me a crook ?

Of course not.

I think many of us have played at least some music on strictly anachronistic instruments. And I understand well, that different kinds of instrumentalists want to play their preferred music on their own instrument. The question is, how interesting the results are as an exclusively listening experience.

[San Antone]

I find the claims that Mozart or Bach or Haydn on modern instruments are "wrong", "a travesty", etc., to be stridently tiresome. 

Although we have plenty of information about instruments and historical performance practices from earlier periods, it is folly to think that we have within our grasp the ability to replicate those practices on instruments which, to the best of our knowledge are appropriate.  Despite our best efforts, we are still informed by all the music and other cultural and technological inventions we've experienced since the 17th or 18th century and prior, and we cannot escape the influence of our own history.  What we create will be different from what Bach experienced.

All of the arguments have been made and answered; the debate is tedious beyond boredom.

Now, I enjoy HIP or PI recordings, and generally prefer them over most modern recordings.  However, I still greatly enjoy Bach on a modern piano.

The music is there awaiting interpretations from musicians throughout the generations, and they will play the music according to their knowledge, training and talent, and their aesthetic philosophy. 

As listeners we are free to choose which performances speak to us.  To my way of thinking, there are no rules to allow or disallow any interpretation.

[mc ukrneal]

Just for the record, I agree that pianists should never play Bach. I resolve that by not listening to them. I don't call them names, nor rail against them; they simply don't exist in my world. 

Then there is balance in the world, because I only listen to Bach on the piano! I know - philistine! hahaha Seriously, I could articulate the reasons I have this preference, but as I am stumbling in blind at the end of the conversation, I suspect enough blood has been spilt!

Anyway, since I played Bach on the saxophone, that probably makes my opinion suspect in any case!

[Florestan]

Despite our best efforts, we are still informed by all the music and other cultural and technological inventions we've experienced since the 17th or 18th century and prior, and we cannot escape the influence of our own history.  What we create will be different from what Bach experienced.

The music is there awaiting interpretations from musicians throughout the generations, and they will play the music according to their knowledge, training and talent, and their aesthetic philosophy. 

As listeners we are free to choose which performances speak to us.  To my way of thinking, there are no rules to allow or disallow any interpretation.

My thoughts exactly, clearly expressed point by point in my yesterday posts. 

[Traverso]

Of course not.

I think many of us have played at least some music on strictly anachronistic instruments. And I understand well, that different kinds of instrumentalists want to play their preferred music on their own instrument. The question is, how interesting the results are as an exclusively listening experience.

Well,let me give you an example of fine Bach playing on the clarinet.I never managed this degree of playing myself.

http://www.youtube.com/v/3rfZ_A1jGqs

[Gurn Blanston]

Okay then, but I can't help noticing that first you said you didn't care what instrument Bach was played on, then you said it shouldn't be played on a piano. Kind of contradictory, I'd say. 

Not at all. I don't care because I respect your right to listen to it. As you respect mine to NOT listen to it. If I don't listen to it, I don't get offended. "Caring about" and "approving of" are two different things in my vocabulary. See? Not hard at all.

[Florestan]

Not at all. I don't care because I respect your right to listen to it. As you respect mine to NOT listen to it. If I don't listen to it, I don't get offended. "Caring about" and "approving of" are two different things in my vocabulary. See? Not hard at all.

Great! I think I'll treat myself tonight with some partitas played by Murrray Perahia. No, actually Maria Tipo might be a better option. 

[Ken B]

I would love to hear Art of Fugue played by a bagpipe quintet. Just sayin'


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vxuhiPg66QI

[Mahlerian]

Timbre was less important as a carrier of musical information in the Baroque and Classical eras than it was in the Romantic era or, especially, in the 20th century.  Is the Well-Tempered Clavier played on a modern concert grand very different from what it could have been in Bach's era?  Of course.  Is it a distortion of the musical intent of the work?  Not really, because the musical content of the work is bound up almost entirely in its pitches and rhythms.

On the other hand, playing the harpsichord part in Elliott Carter's Double Concerto on a piano would significantly distort the musical intent of the work, because the specific timbre of the harpsichord is intrinsic to the musical argument.

So while I do enjoy lots of HIP recordings, I see no problems in listening to modern orchestras or pianists play Bach and Mozart.  I understand that others see the issue differently, and I don't take any offense at that either.

[Mandryka]

Timbre was less important as a carrier of musical information in the Baroque and Classical eras than it was in the Romantic era or, especially, in the 20th century.  Is the Well-Tempered Clavier played on a modern concert grand very different from what it could have been in Bach's era?  Of course.  Is it a distortion of the musical intent of the work?  Not really, because the musical content of the work is bound up almost entirely in its pitches and rhythms

This touches on the identity problems which I think are at the heart of these questions. We have to first be clear what the essential musical content is to know whether playing it on an inauthentic instrument is producing a separate piece of music -- like Bach's transcriptions of the Vivaldi concertos.

Can you imagine if someone went to a concert advertised "Vivaldi D major violin concerto" and when they got there they found it was some bloke on a clavichord playing BWV 972. I think they could rightfully take them to court, ask for their money back and get them sent to prison.  That's how I sometimes feel when I listen to what pianists do with the Goldberg Variations.

(I've just had this terrible memory of one year at the Edinburgh Festival getting a ticket to see some play by Ibsen or Strindberg or Chekhov -- I forget now. Anyway when I got there I found it was in Scottish Gaelic, they just hadn't mentioned it on the poster. There was no escape for about an hour.)

[Mahlerian]

This touches on the identity problems which I think are at the heart of these questions. We have to first be clear what the essential musical content is to know whether playing it on an inauthentic instrument is producing a separate piece of music -- like Bach's transcriptions of the Vivaldi concertos.

Can you imagine if someone went to a concert advertised "Vivaldi D major violin concerto" and when they got there they found it was some bloke on a clavichord playing BWV 972. I think they could rightfully take them to court, ask for their money back and get them sent to prison.  That's how I sometimes feel when I listen to what pianists do with the Goldberg Variations.

There is certainly a scale involved.  I don't personally have a problem with transcriptions or arrangements, but I think of such performances as being of derivative works, not as performances of the original itself.

[Florestan]

Can you imagine if someone went to a concert advertised "Vivaldi D major violin concerto" and when they got there they found it was some bloke on a clavichord playing BWV 972. I think they could rightfully take them to court, ask for their money back and get them sent to prison.  That's how I sometimes feel when I listen to what pianists do with the Goldberg Variations.

I fail to see how could advertising "Vivaldi on violin concerto" and offering "Bach on solo harpsichord" be the same as advertising "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X" and offering, well... "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X".

[Mandryka]

There is certainly a scale involved.

This is what makes it interesting because -- I don't know if you've done any logic -- we're in the territory of "vague objects", which is right at the cutting edge of logical theory at the moment.

[Mahlerian]

This is what makes it interesting because -- I don't know if you've done any logic -- we're in the territory of "vague objects", which is right at the cutting edge of logical theory at the moment.

I did, but we only went as far as modal logic in my class.

[Mandryka]

I fail to see how could advertising "Vivaldi on violin concerto" and offering "Bach on solo harpsichord" be the same as advertising "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X" and offering, well... "the Goldberg Variations played by pianist X".

This is why it's so interesting from a logical point of view.  A harpsichordist can certainly play the Goldbergs. You say a pianist can. What about a string trio or a bagpipe player? Mahlerian suggests it's a matter of degree, there is no line to be drawn, and to do that he's had to identify the "musical essence" of the piece, and argue that the essence is preserved (preservable? does it matter if the pianist uses piano specific effects like pedal and volume?) in the transition from harpsichord to piano. I'm sure that San Antone was wrong to say that all the arguments have been made and answered -- logically, philosophically, metaphysically, there's a lot to research .