The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[San Antone]

Also, public performance became more prevalent during the 19th century.  All of Bach's solo keyboard works (other than organ) were for private performance, hence the clavichord was his favored instrument.  Today, pianists regularly perform Bach at concerts to a large audience and need to project volume.

I wonder had Bach owned a Steinway, if the clavichord would still have been his favorite.

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

Yes, I'm not saying 'not interested', just 'less interested', eh? 

Haydn was significantly more interested, although there is no question he was a supreme orchestrator. In his letter to the monks at Zwettl about the Applausus Cantata, he showed to be at pains even about the basso continuo part, which no one had ever expressed interest in print before:

...I prefer a band with three bass instruments – cello, bassoon and violone (Austrian version of the bass viol, sort of) to one with even six double basses and three cellos... [because it sounds better]

What we have trouble coming to grips with is the fact that what we think of as 'orchestra' was a brand new invention, and far from standardized. Early descriptions of what was needed were far simpler, basso and descant (bass & soprano) were enough in many cases. That's why it is so hard to pin down even something simple like 'flute'. Is it a traverso? A recorder? Who knows?  And will a violin do OK with it? Or an oboe? Sure, any of them works fine. We have a good oboist here tonight, give him that part.

However, for all that, they weren't freaking time travelers. No, they didn't give a shit about a 'grand piano' and lose sleep that their work wasn't going to be performed on one. It is people today who wish to impose their own taste on the people of the past in total defiance of time's arrow who believe that. And as I said earlier, I'm perfectly good with that if it's what someone wants, they should be able to have it. But Glenn Gould and Angela Hewitt playing Bach simply don't exist in my world. And now we are all happy! 

[amw]

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.

The organ can also play crescendo and diminuendo (as well as loud or soft), but we do not find those dynamic markings in Bach's organ works. Nor do we find crescendi and diminuendi in eg Bach's violin works or cantatas etc. And Bach himself performed many of his keyboard works on the clavichord, which has the same dynamic possibilities as the piano (except at a much lower volume). It seems fairly clear that the absence of dynamics is not due to any technical limitation but rather a conscious aesthetic choice on Bach's part, i.e. that he intended individual movements to be played at one fairly consistent dynamic level (or with consistent terraced dynamics as in eg WTC II/18 or French Overture).

[Mandryka]

aesthetic choice on Bach's part, i.e. that he intended individual movements to be played at one fairly consistent dynamic level (or with consistent terraced dynamics as in eg WTC II/18 or French Overture).

That's too quick a conclusion, maybe there were conventions that in solo music the decisions about dynamic shading would be at the performer's discretion - as with rubato etc.

[Florestan]

Yes Tipo is amazing.

Do you really like her interpretation?

[Florestan]

It is people today who wish to impose their own taste on the people of the past

Actually, the problem is people today who wish to impose their own taste on other people today, like "if one listens to Bach on the piano one doesn't listen to Bach at all" or "Bach on the piano is an atrocity". Really? Are those who play or enjoy Bach on the piano deluded dimwits, bad taste and tin ears? This is only too logical a conclusion to be drawn from the abovementioned claims.

[prémont]

Also, public performance became more prevalent during the 19th century.  All of Bach's solo keyboard works (other than organ) were for private performance, hence the clavichord was his favored instrument.

Yes for performance, and for this purpose the harpsichord was the chosen instrument. The clavicord first and foremost served the purpose of education and practising, because the number of listeners at a clavichord "recital" must be very small, if they all are supposed to hear the music.So in e.g. Cöthen and Zimmermann's cafe clavichord recitals were impractical.

Also the claim that the clavichord was his favored instrument isn't that well foundel (only C P E Bahc in 60 years retrospect).

[prémont]

The organ can also play crescendo and diminuendo

Aha. How did they do it?

[prémont]

... maybe there were conventions that in solo music the decisions about dynamic shading would be at the performer's discretion .....

I have not seen any sources confirming this. And organ and harpsichord (including lute-harpsichord) were unable "shade" in other ways than terrace dynamics. Only the clavichord allowed a little dynamic shading, and only to a limited degree. Maybe a too fast conclusion, but like amw I am convinced, that dynamic shadings are missing in the scores, because they so to say were impossible to execute.

[San Antone]

It is people today who wish to impose their own taste on the people of the past

Yes; and that's a good thing.  And you are kidding yourself if you think Haydn played on a period instrument is not an example of that.  Every time a musician today plays a piece of music from the past they are imposing their taste on the music.  Playing the music on a modern instrument is a difference of degree, not kind.

[prémont]

Actually, the problem is people today who wish to impose their own taste on other people today, like "if one listens to Bach on the piano one doesn't listen to Bach at all" or "Bach on the piano is an atrocity". Really?

I think the problem is the opposite, namely that people, who swear to the Romantic style (which as you know didn't exist in Bach's time), want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style (or rather what we know about it). But as I have written above, I think this is not first and foremost a question about the used instrument, but more a question about the musician. It is indeed possible to play the piano without irrelevant romantic delving, but it is not heard that often.

[Florestan]

Every time a musician today plays a piece of music from the past they are imposing their taste on the music.  Playing the music on a modern instrument is a difference of degree, not kind.

+ 1.

[Florestan]

I think the problem is the opposite, namely that people, who swear to the Romantic style (which as you know didn't exist in Bach's time), want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style (or rather what we know about it).

Please, give us some examples of "people, who swear to the Romantic style" and who "want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style".

[Florestan]

If strict, uncompromising, rigid and literal adherence to "the score as written" was the best, nay, the only way to go about it, then the best performance --- nay, the definitive one --- would be that of a robot programmed to play exactly what's written in the score, nothing more and nothing less*. That would also spell the death of musical performance, for why bother trying to replicate what a machine can do better and why bother doing things differently if the result is going to be frowned upon as an unwarranted and unwelcome deviation "from the score as wriiten"?

* and good luck to the programmer(s) with those scores without any tempo indication whatsoever.

Problem is that, afaIk, strict, uncompromising, rigid and literal adherence to "the score as written" is utterly and completely alien to the Baroque performing philosophy.

[Mandryka]

I have not seen any sources confirming this. And organ and harpsichord (including lute-harpsichord) were unable "shade" in other ways than terrace dynamics. Only the clavichord allowed a little dynamic shading, and only to a limited degree. Maybe a too fast conclusion, but like amw I am convinced, that dynamic shadings are missing in the scores, because they so to say were impossible to execute.

It's interesting to listen, in the light of this discussion, to the dynamics that Chorzempa uses in the D# minor fugue Bk 2.

I'd like to know about clavichord manuals - whether anyone wrote about expressive playing of clavichord.

[Mandryka]

Please, give us some examples of "people, who swear to the Romantic style" and who "want to impose their taste upon those who prefer the more obvious Baroque style".

Hewitt maybe, though « impose » is probably  going too far.

Re Tipo, I like her Chopin nocturnes maybe more than anyone's, and I appreciate her Mozart with Ughi, and some of her Bethoven. In Bach and Scarlatti, less so, but this is partly because I'm not a great fan of the sound of the piano.

(I've just started to listen to her playing Ravel, two piano things with someone called Alessandro Specchi.)

[Florestan]

I'd like to know about clavichord manuals - whether anyone wrote about expressive playing of clavichord.

Click here:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=7lpLypct4FEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=christian+schubart+clavichord&source=bl&ots=kE2DBjrjTr&sig=_z0rALwvlnmnl1M63wNnI8V4Tt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx-cuszcvcAhXH_KQKHY3mD5AQ6AEwCnoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=christian%20schubart%20clavichord&f=false

and scroll down to the paragraphs dedicated to Christian Schubart.

[Mandryka]

Click here:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=7lpLypct4FEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=christian+schubart+clavichord&source=bl&ots=kE2DBjrjTr&sig=_z0rALwvlnmnl1M63wNnI8V4Tt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx-cuszcvcAhXH_KQKHY3mD5AQ6AEwCnoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=christian%20schubart%20clavichord&f=false

and scroll down to the paragraphs dedicated to Christian Schubart.

Thanks that's helpful. It's a bit late though for guidance about how to read a score by Bach when you're playing an instrument with dynamic possibilities. There must have been comments about clavichord playing in the 17th century - indeed I expect there was music written specially for clavichord students.

[Florestan]

Hewitt maybe, though « impose » is probably  going too far.

Did she say / write something to the effect that the piano is the only right instrument that should be used for Bach, or that adding dynamics is the only right way of playing his music, or that Bach on harpsichord is atrocious?

Re Tipo, I like her Chopin nocturnes maybe more than anyone's, and I appreciate her Mozart with Ughi, and some of her Bethoven. In Bach and Scarlatti, less so, but this is partly because I'm not a great fan of the sound of the piano.

Thanks for clarifying. From your original post I inferred you appreciated her Bach and I was rather incredulous, therefore my question. 

[Mandryka]

Did she say / write something to the effect that the piano is the only right instrument that should be used for Bach, or that adding dynamics is the only right way of playing his music, or that Bach on harpsichord is atrocious?

I know this isn't helpful, but I have a memory, probably fallacious, that that's exactly what she was implying in that interview that I started a thread about in 2013, and which has now been removed from the web.