The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

I answered this, well, concerning Bach:

"He might have hated this and that" is not at all the same thing as "He used this and that, therefore only this and that should be used".

[prémont]

I actually hoped you'd ask. It's Gustav Leonhardt. 

It is almost always thought-provoking what he expressed, and I know, that some will accuse me of heresy - but I do not think, that Leonhardt's thoughts always were that stringent. He could be excessively rigid at times (uncompromising using boy sopranos and altos) and at other times surprisingly slack in his points of view (no repeats in GV, partitas et c.).

[prémont]

"He might have hated this and that" is not at all the same thing as "He used this and that, therefore only this and that should be used".

But the circumstances are all we know, and I find it even more far out to suggest that he hated them.

After all he might have found another job, if it was that bad. Only the many disputes with the St.Thomas school caused him -  briefly - to think of another job.

[Florestan]

Richard Taruskin has written a lot about the false notion of "authenticity" in the HIP camp.  In email exchanges  I've had with a few prominent early music musicians, no one talks about it anymore. I think most admit that everyone is performing the music according to modern tastes despite using so-called period instruments.

And besides, how about the notion of "authenticity" on the listener's side? Is listening to recordings of Bach's cantatas or attending harpsichord recitals authentic? Is repeatedly listening to, and comparing different recordings of, one and the same piece authentic?

One oft repetead HIP argument is that Bach had no idea about pianos therefore pianos are anathema for his mjusic. By the same token, Bach had no idea about recordings and recitals therefore recordings and recitals are anathema for his music.

[prémont]

Rubsam's recent recordings of the WTC on lute harpsichord sound to me as utilizing more stylistic freedoms than Schiff's recording on piano.  The choice of instrument does not necessarily mean anything regarding the interpretation.  Although Schiff plays a piano he does not use the sustain pedal.

I think Rübsam shows great imagination in these recordings, but I would say that it is within the frames of what I consider Baroque spirit. And he doesn't fiddle with the dynamics - the instrument can't do such things. But also his Bach on piano recordings are very restricted dynamically. His expressive capabilities takes first and foremost place on other levels.

[milk]

And besides, how about the notion of "authenticity" on the listener's side? Is listening to recordings of Bach's cantatas or attending harpsichord recitals authentic? Is repeatedly listening to, and comparing different recordings of, one and the same piece authentic?

One oft repetead HIP argument is that Bach had no idea about pianos therefore pianos are anathema for his mjusic. By the same token, Bach had no idea about recordings and recitals therefore recordings and recitals are anathema for his music.

If you close your eyes and imagine yourself in - what is it? - the Zimmerman cafe? That's authentic enough except I bet Bach's band wasn't as good as what we have available now. I guess he had to go with whomever was in town, good bad or mediocre.

[Florestan]

But the circumstances are all we know, and I find it even more far out to suggest that he hated them.

After all he might have found another job, if it was that bad. Only the many disputes with the St.Thomas school caused him -  briefly - to think of another job.

I think you're focusing too much on, and take too literally, only a small portion of a paragraph which, read as a whole, doesn't imply what you apparently thinks it implies.

And a reminder:

Well, just the fact that they play as they do in public and on recordings, means that they want their performing style spread around.

Are you sure you didn't miss an emoticon here?

First, it means nothing of the sort. It simply means they do their job as performers: perform in the hope that the audience will enjoy their recitals or recordings. The only way they can spread their performing style is by taking pupils, which by its very nature has a very limited influence.

Second, what do you suggest? That they should be forbidden from performing in public or recording just because you find their style insufferable and take their performing in public and recording as an attempt to force it down your throat?

[prémont]

And besides, how about the notion of "authenticity" on the listener's side? Is listening to recordings of Bach's cantatas or attending harpsichord recitals authentic? Is repeatedly listening to, and comparing different recordings of, one and the same piece authentic?

One oft repetead HIP argument is that Bach had no idea about pianos therefore pianos are anathema for his mjusic. By the same token, Bach had no idea about recordings and recitals therefore recordings and recitals are anathema for his music.

Bach probably had ideas about performances. Concerts and CDs just represent a given performance each. And they also reflect the many options involved. Neither do I think Bach himself always performed his works in the same way.

[prémont]

Richard Taruskin has written a lot about the false notion of "authenticity" in the HIP camp.  In email exchanges  I've had with a few prominent early music musicians, no one talks about it anymore. I think most admit that everyone is performing the music according to modern tastes despite using so-called period instruments.

Yes, but modern taste for Baroque music did not fall down from Heaven. To day it is unambiguously influenced by the musicological and organological evidence we have got during the last 100 years or so.

[Florestan]

If you close your eyes and imagine yourself in - what is it? - the Zimmerman cafe? That's authentic enough except I bet Bach's band wasn't as good as what we have available now. I guess he had to go with whomever was in town, good bad or mediocre.

Precisely. It would be authentic only if you listened to the keyboard concertos in a coffee-house, played by probably under-rehearsed semi-professionals and possibly half-drunk amateurs, while drinking, eating and playing cards yourself. 

[Mandryka]

In email exchanges  I've had with a few prominent early music musicians, no one talks about it anymore.

Who? Even Schmelzer was keen to justify his performance of the mass by reference to Machaut's intentions in the legacy.

. I think most admit that everyone is performing the music according to modern tastes despite using so-called period instruments.

No that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.

[Florestan]

that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.

You mean, the modern taste for constantly taking their inspiration from historical research? 

[prémont]

I think you're focusing too much on, and take too literally, only a small portion of a paragraph which, read as a whole, doesn't imply what you apparently thinks it implies.

I focused on the passus you emphasized.

Second, what do you suggest? That they should be forbidden from performing in public or recording just because you find their style insufferable and take their performing in public and recording as an attempt to force it down your throat?

Of course not, we are fortunately living in a democratic society. Therefore I also use my right to contradict self-appointed authorities.

[milk]

Precisely. It would be authentic only if you listened to the keyboard concertos in a coffee-house, played by probably under-rehearsed semi-professionals and possibly half-drunk amateurs, while drinking, eating and playing cards yourself. 

Sound like fun, doesn't it? Would we be surprised by the context? And how surprised would Bach be if he appeared today, to hear a performance of total virtuosos?

[Florestan]

I focused on the passus you emphasized.

Of course not, we are fortunately living in a democratic society. Therefore I also use my right to contradict self-appointed authorities.

That's all fine but --- come on, Barenboim or Sokolov self-appointed authorities in Baroque music performance? 

[prémont]

No that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.

Prercisely. At the moment I am reading Colin Booth's treatise "Did Bach really mean that". It's about how we can conclude rather many things about rhythm in Baroque music from the scores and other musicological evidence. And of course he uses this knowledge when performing the music, Very recommendable.

[Florestan]

Sound like fun, doesn't it?

I would unhesitatingly go for it should the opportunity ever presented itself.

how surprised would Bach be if he appeared today, to hear a performance of total virtuosos?

I'd say, probably much more surprised than if he appeared today to hear Angela Hewitt playing.   

[San Antone]

I think Rübsam shows great imagination in these recordings, but I would say that it is within the frames of what I consider Baroque spirit. And he doesn't fiddle with the dynamics - the instrument can't do such things. But also his Bach on piano recordings are very restricted dynamically. His expressive capabilities takes first and foremost place on other levels.

Imagination is the correct word since his interpretation, as I understand it, is largely based on the appearance of Bach's manuscript and how the polyphonic lines do not exactly line up vertically.  Rubsam's idea that this is an indication about how one line should be staggered against another is pure speculation.

Is it in the "Baroque spirit"?  Is it "authentic"?  I don't know, and we can never really know.  But are those questions important?  For me, all that counts is whether Rubsam's performance is musical and enjoyable.

[prémont]

That's all fine but --- come on, Barenboim or Sokolov self-appointed authorities in Baroque music performance? 

Yes, but not - of course - as malignant as Glen Gould.

[San Antone]

Who? Even Schmelzer was keen to justify his performance of the mass by reference to Machaut's intentions in the legacy.

No that's wrong, the early music people are constantly taking their inspiration from historical research.

Schmelzer was one I has an exchange with, and his theory of Machaut's will (and it is a theory) informs his interpretation as well as his choice of singers, which is an even greater stretch.  The main thrust of his argument was his desire to rescue the music from those who wish to embalm it in a museum type of approach.

Elizabeth Eva Leach was another person with whom I had several exchanges about this issue, and she was adamant about staying clear of any idea of "authenticity".  She was in total agreement with Taruskin's idea that the entire early music, HIP, movement is an example of post-modernism.