The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Mandryka]

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

There's a famous paper by Gareth Evans -- quite accessible -- which started it off, called "Can there be vague objects?" in Analysis I think .

[Gurn Blanston]

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 .

Here we get into an area which I am only passingly familiar with, but which I suspect you know quite a bit about. Namely, that many voices in 17th & 18th century works were just that: voices of a certain range. IOW, if you didn't have an oboe available to play in your entertainment plan that evening, you could get a violin to play that part, or maybe a recorder, and no one, composer included, would scarcely notice one way or the other. It's because tone color was of only modest interest then, certainly not what it was by Rimski-Korsakov's time, or even Haydn's. Is that not true?  It is something about which I need to learn more, I think it is very interesting conceptually. The reason I think you might already know more is because I associate the first time I ever heard of this phenomenon with Bach...

[Karl Henning]

Here we get into an area which I am only passingly familiar with, but which I suspect you know quite a bit about. Namely, that many voices in 17th & 18th century works were just that: voices of a certain range. IOW, if you didn't have an oboe available to play in your entertainment plan that evening, you could get a violin to play that part, or maybe a recorder, and no one, composer included, would scarcely notice one way or the other. It's because tone color was of only modest interest then, certainly not what it was by Rimski-Korsakov's time, or even Haydn's. Is that not true?

Seems so to me.

But, you know, you seem to be half a step away from almost suggesting that a Bach clavier piece played on a grand piano is not an atrocity.  I do not go so far as to say you make any such rash assertion.  It was just this . . . feeling I had.

[Gurn Blanston]

Seems so to me.

But, you know, you seem to be half a step away from almost suggesting that a Bach clavier piece played on a grand piano is not an atrocity.  I do not go so far as to say you make any such rash assertion.  It was just this . . . feeling I had.

No, and that's why I checked back in just now, because I knew someone (didn't think it would be you, Karl!!) would infer that. I was talking strictly about orchestral pieces. If something was for solo anything, it was characteristic for that instrument. In your example, a keyboard, of which there were many types, none of them grand. But the backup band is what was specifically written in what I read, and what I was talking about.

[Karl Henning]

No, and that's why I checked back in just now, because I knew someone (didn't think it would be you, Karl!!) would infer that. I was talking strictly about orchestral pieces. If something was for solo anything, it was characteristic for that instrument. In your example, a keyboard, of which there were many types, none of them grand. But the backup band is what was specifically written in what I read, and what I was talking about.

Check.  But there is also matter of the Bach taking violin concerti and making them keyboard concerti—if I am remembering correctly—which is a more radical adjustment than the general practice you speak of.

I beg pardon for drawing your post into the "atrocity" controversy!

[Florestan]

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.

Which brings us back to the question of "arrangements" and "transcriptions".

According to Merriam-Webster:

arrangement: a piece of music that has been changed so that it can be performed by particular types of voices or instruments

transcription: an arrangement of a musical composition for some instrument or voice other than the original

So, the way I understand it:

1. playing the Goldberg Variations on a violin is a transcription; one needs a different score than the original --- but only one --- to do that.

2. playing the GV as a string trio is an arrangement; one needs not only one, but three different scores than the original.

These are clear examples of a distortion --- a technical term not a judgment value --- of the original intention of the composer.

Now, where does playing the GV on a piano belong? There is only one instrument involved, so apparently a transcription. But is the score different than the original? Does the pianist need a different score than this one:



in order to play it? As far as I can tell, no --- my answer in the negative is an educated guess based on the title page of the Moonlight Sonata published score which I posted above and which reads "per clavicembalo o piano-forte", thus implying that the selfsame score can be played both on a harpsichord or on a piano.

But if this is so, then where is the transcription? Nowhere, because the very definition of a transcription is not met, namely having a different score. The only difference is that in the GV original score there are no dynamics and conversely that the dynamics markings in the original score of the MS cannot be played on a harpsichord, but apart from that both the harpsichordist and the pianist use exactly the same score and play exactly the same notes by using exactly the same method, namely depressing the keys of a keyboard. Therefore, I ask: how can the two sonic net end results of all this be regarded as so vastly different as to warrant labelling the piano version a travesty?

[bwv 1080]

usually the difference between arrangement and transcription is the the degree to which the original composition is changed.  A largely note by note playing of a piece on an instrument it was not originally written for is usually called a transcription.  Its not a clear line, because for example, on bach guitar transcriptions of Cello suites, the implied harmony and counterpoint is often explicitly filled out

[Mahlerian]

usually the difference between arrangement and transcription is the the degree to which the original composition is changed.  A largely note by note playing of a piece on an instrument it was not originally written for is usually called a transcription.  Its not a clear line, because for example, on bach guitar transcriptions of Cello suites, the implied harmony and counterpoint is often explicitly filled out

I think of it as a difference in degree rather than kind.  Both are adaptations, and there are transcriptions that require more arrangement and transcriptions that require less.

[Mandryka]

With GV, there are some variations where Bach asked for a two manual instrument. If these are indeed playable on one keyboard, the question remains, why did he ask for two? The answer may be that he wanted each manual to have a different registration, in order to bring relief to the counterpoint. So even if it is true that, as it were, you can with difficulty play the notes on a piano, there's more in the score that's implied. There's more to the score than the notes.

There is then a question of performance style. The travesty on the piano, which may be an enjoyable travesty to some, indeed a great performance, can come about when the piano player uses piano effects which Bach did not intend, pedal effects and extreme dynamics, for example. There's more to the music than the score.

Something which I think you may have suggested, Florestan, yesterday - if I'm wrong please forgive me - but it's bugging me. Did you want to suggest that a piano performance of a harpsichord or organ piece may reveal something new about the music (rather than about the performer)?  Something which isn't accessible on the intended instruments. You may be right, or you may not, but an example would be good.

[Florestan]

there's more in the score that's implied. There's more to the score than the notes.

Interesting. If I interpret this as meaning that in a score without dynamic markings there's something about the very spirit of the music that might benefit from adding some dynamics here and there, would I be far off the mark?

Something which I think you may have suggested, Florestan, yesterday - if I'm wrong please forgive me - but it's bugging me. Did you want to suggest that a piano performance of a harpsichord or organ piece may reveal something new about the music (rather than about the performer)?  Something which isn't accessible on the intended instruments. You may be right, or you may not, but an example would be good.

Yes, I did suggest it but I'm afraid I can't put it in an objective, impersonal way. I can just say, for instance, that I don't much care for Bach's partitas on harpsichord as I feel nothing, but absolutely nothing when listening to them in this way --- nothing besides a need to turn the thing off before it ends "officially", that is, but Maria Tipo's performance of them gives goosebumps on my spine and opens to me a whole world of human feelings ranging from tender lyricism to fierce passion to serene contentment to playful cheerfulness to whatnot --- and the same goes for Murray Perahia or Richter or Lipatti or Tatyana Nikolaeva or you name a pianist. I know, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed romantic and I tend to view everything through romantic glasses, but that's just me and I can't help being otherwise: I need cantabile and con gran espressione and durchaus fantastisch und leidenschaftlich vorzutragen in my music and the harpsichord can't give me any of that, while the piano can with a vengeance. But then I read that I have it all wrong and that the piano shouldn't even be an option --- is it any wonder that I try to defend my position?

[San Antone]

I am reminded of a quote from Bob Dylan, "Man, it's not the bombs that have to go but the museums."  A somewhat radical statement but what I think he is getting at is that embalming art is not as worthwhile as keeping the art (i.e. music) alive with new interpretations.

Again, I think it comes down to what as listeners and musicians we prefer. I remain unconvinced that there is any objective argument to be made for insisting on period instruments and a style of performance based on what we believe to be the practice in Bach's day, for example.

[Gurn Blanston]

...in order to play it? As far as I can tell, no --- my answer in the negative is an educated guess based on the title page of the Moonlight Sonata published score which I posted above and which reads "per clavicembalo o piano-forte", thus implying that the selfsame score can be played both on a harpsichord or on a piano.

You really shouldn't put much stock in this, though, for the following reason: I can try to cite you something you can look up later when I am home, but here is the fact of the matter: by 1800, there were most likely zero functioning harpsichords in Vienna. When they went out of fashion, they seriously went out of fashion.  Publishers put that on there because since the 1770's it had been a tradition to put 'for the harpsichord or fortepiano'. At first, they fortepiano was the rarity and was being accommodated as something odd, maybe for the future. But by the time Op 27 was written, it was exactly the opposite situation. It may have been that out in the remote wilderness somewhere there was a mad cembalist looking for new music, but de facto, the harpsichord was dead and gone.

You have the means to research this if you want. If you do, you will discover I am correct. So basing your argument on such ground is foolhardy at best.

[Florestan]

You really shouldn't put much stock in this, though, for the following reason: I can try to cite you something you can look up later when I am home, but here is the fact of the matter: by 1800, there were most likely zero functioning harpsichords in Vienna. When they went out of fashion, they seriously went out of fashion.  Publishers put that on there because since the 1770's it had been a tradition to put 'for the harpsichord or fortepiano'. At first, they fortepiano was the rarity and was being accommodated as something odd, maybe for the future. But by the time Op 27 was written, it was exactly the opposite situation. It may have been that out in the remote wilderness somewhere there was a mad cembalist looking for new music, but de facto, the harpsichord was dead and gone.

You have the means to research this if you want. If you do, you will discover I am correct. So basing your argument on such ground is foolhardy at best.

All right. Can you then say in all certainty that a pianist do need a different score than a harpsichordist to play the Goldberg Variations?

And this in fact brings us to another interesting topic: why is it that of all the instruments in use around 1750, the harpsichord  and the clavichord are the only ones that have been abandoned for good by 1800, ie in the course of only 50 years? Why such a cruel fate if they were such wonderful instruments? 

[bwv 1080]

And this in fact brings us to another interesting topic: why is it that of all the instruments in use around 1750, the harpsichord  and the clavichord are the only ones that have been abandoned for good by 1800, ie in the course of only 50 years? Why such a cruel fate if they were such wonderful instruments? 

Not abandoned, see http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,28119.0.html

[Ken B]

I am reminded of a quote from Bob Dylan, "Man, it's not the bombs that have to go but the museums."  A somewhat radical statement but what I think he is getting at is that embalming art is not as worthwhile as keeping the art (i.e. music) alive with new interpretations.

Again, I think it comes down to what as listeners and musicians we prefer. I remain unconvinced that there is any objective argument to be made for insisting on period instruments and a style of performance based on what we believe to be the practice in Bach's day, for example.

Well, now I know why he didn't win the Peace prize.

[Gurn Blanston]

All right. Can you then say in all certainty that a pianist do need a different score than a harpsichordist to play the Goldberg Variations?

And this in fact brings us to another interesting topic: why is it that of all the instruments in use around 1750, the harpsichord  and the clavichord are the only ones that have been abandoned for good by 1800, ie in the course of only 50 years? Why such a cruel fate if they were such wonderful instruments? 

If they are playing it the way you said you enjoy, with all sorts of dynamic effects, then they are not playing it according to the score as written, because those markings aren't IN the original score.

Yes, I did suggest it but I'm afraid I can't put it in an objective, impersonal way. I can just say, for instance, that I don't much care for Bach's partitas on harpsichord as I feel nothing, but absolutely nothing when listening to them in this way --- nothing besides a need to turn the thing off before it ends "officially", that is, but Maria Tipo's performance of them gives goosebumps on my spine and opens to me a whole world of human feelings ranging from tender lyricism to fierce passion to serene contentment to playful cheerfulness to whatnot --- and the same goes for Murray Perahia or Richter or Lipatti or Tatyana Nikolaeva or you name a pianist. I know, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed romantic and I tend to view everything through romantic glasses, but that's just me and I can't help being otherwise: I need cantabile and con gran espressione and durchaus fantastisch und leidenschaftlich vorzutragen in my music and the harpsichord can't give me any of that, while the piano can with a vengeance.

So if you actually made a performing copy of the score for piano, which included all those markings, then yes, it would be an arrangement of the GV, not a realization of Bach's GV, but of the pianist's GV. Which is fine, I'm not against any of that, I'm just saying call  it what it is.

[Mandryka]

Interesting. If I interpret this as meaning that in a score without dynamic markings there's something about the very spirit of the music that might benefit from adding some dynamics here and there, would I be far off the mark?

Yes, I did suggest it but I'm afraid I can't put it in an objective, impersonal way. I can just say, for instance, that I don't much care for Bach's partitas on harpsichord as I feel nothing, but absolutely nothing when listening to them in this way --- nothing besides a need to turn the thing off before it ends "officially", that is, but Maria Tipo's performance of them gives goosebumps on my spine and opens to me a whole world of human feelings ranging from tender lyricism to fierce passion to serene contentment to playful cheerfulness to whatnot --- and the same goes for Murray Perahia or Richter or Lipatti or Tatyana Nikolaeva or you name a pianist. I know, I'm an unrepentant, unabashed romantic and I tend to view everything through romantic glasses, but that's just me and I can't help being otherwise: I need cantabile and con gran espressione and durchaus fantastisch und leidenschaftlich vorzutragen in my music and the harpsichord can't give me any of that, while the piano can with a vengeance. But then I read that I have it all wrong and that the piano shouldn't even be an option --- is it any wonder that I try to defend my position?

Yes Tipo is amazing.

Just a quick point on dynamics. You can change volume on some harpsichords by setting things up so that more strings are plucked when you play, coupling keyboards, but not for short phrases or individual notes. More interestingly, a harpsichord player can create the illusion of dynamic change even for short phrases, really by delaying the onset of a note for a millisecond, so it becomes slightly off the beat, and so your ear is attracted to it.  I can assure you that when this is done well it is very convincing!  Clavichords can play loud or soft, but not the extreme dynamics of a modern piano. Organs can do extreme dynamics.

So yes, a pianist playing Bach may judge that something in the score is suggesting a dynamic variation, but not an extreme one, and in the Goldbergs, not for a short phrase or individual note. I think you hear this in some of Wolfgang Rubsam's piano recordings.

As to why the piano took over from the harpsichord as a domestic instrument, I suppose the composers started writing music which needed piano like qualities. Music became more about memorable melody, less about contrapuntal tension / release and the consonance/ dissonance caused by the clashing of independent voices. I also wonder if a piano is easier to play - I mean easier to make soulful expressive music on, just because you have dynamics, sustain etc.

[prémont]

..... It's because tone color was of only modest interest then, certainly not what it was by Rimski-Korsakov's time, or even Haydn's. Is that not true? 

Of course the Romantics were more obsessed with instrumental color than the Baroque composers were, but color also had some importance to Baroque composers. J S Bach was very interested in different organ stops, which only differ as to their color. And in the second Brandenburg concerto e.g., the four soloists have almost the same music to play, they only differ as to their color - one can say, that their different color is part of the point of this concert. I also think instrumental color has a great importance in the other Brandenburgs. Why score them so differently, if color had no importance? Another example: the French Baroque organ composers prescribe usually very explicitly which stops should be used in a given piece of music, because they wanted each piece to have a specific color. And many other examples may be found.

[Mahlerian]

As to why the piano took over from the harpsichord as a domestic instrument, I suppose the composers started writing music which needed piano like qualities. Music became more about memorable melody, less about contrapuntal tension / release and the consonance/ dissonance caused by the clashing of independent voices. I also wonder if a piano is easier to play - I mean easier to make soulful expressive music on, just because you have dynamics, sustain etc.

Yes, but this was already becoming true in Bach's own time.  His interest in older polyphonic procedures was not the norm, and there was lots of homophonic music being written before the piano became the standard for domestic music making.

[prémont]

But if this is so, then where is the transcription? Nowhere, because the very definition of a transcription is not met, namely having a different score. The only difference is that in the GV original score there are no dynamics and conversely that the dynamics markings in the original score of the MS cannot be played on a harpsichord, but apart from that both the harpsichordist and the pianist use exactly the same score and play exactly the same notes by using exactly the same method, namely depressing the keys of a keyboard. Therefore, I ask: how can the two sonic net end results of all this be regarded as so vastly different as to warrant labelling the piano version a travesty?

If there had been dynamic markings in the score of the GV, they would be of a kind which could be played on a harpsichord (terraced dynamics - such is found e,g, in the Italian concerto). The term "for two manuals" may also imply a dynamic shading as Mandryka writes, but a harpsichord can still play it. Maybe it is rather suggestive, that dynamic markings, which a piano (but not a harpsichord) can play (crescendo, diminuendo) never are found in Bach's keyboard scores. And when a pianist plays the GV, he adds dynamic differentiation which never were substantiated in the score. He makes so many additions, that it would be another score, if we tried to write his additions into the score. Rubato, articulation (only rarely indicated in the scores) and added ornamentation can't be regarded in the same way, because all thinkable combinations can be played on a harpsichord, and there were some traditions concerning how to handle this and also in practice some degree of freedom. So the lack of dynamic markings in Bach's keyboard scores would seem to fit the claim, that the music wasn't composed for piano but rather for harpsichord, which also was the prevalent concert keyboard of the time.