The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

Yes,

Let's see. A self-appointed authority is someone who proclaims himself extremely knowledgeable in a given field and as such misses no opportunity to pontificate about, and lecture on, the topics of that field, possibly even throwing around some excommunications. Are you really saying, or implying, that this is indeed the case with Barenboim and Sokolov and Baroque music performance?

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

The Stalin of classical music, right?

[prémont]

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.

I think a certain de-syncronisation of the voices particularly in a fugue may add some expressive and still stylish effects, but I do not subscribe to WR's theory that the method can be seen in Bach's manuscript, because I never saw a manuscript of Bach's with complete alignment of the voices. Se e.g. the dedication score of the Brandenburgs. It is unthinkable, that de-syncronisation was implied there. But when the de-synmcronisation is made that imaginatively and apparently spontaneously, in the way Rübsam is capable to do, I think it is an enrichment of the music.

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

Bullshit.

[San Antone]

Most of my experience in this area is with vocal music from the Medieval period and how to interpret the scanty evidence from the existing scores and other sources.  One need only sample a variety of recordings of Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame to get an idea of the wide spectrum of interpretations.  Not only issues of the size of the vocal group, or whether or not to include liturgical chants, but even the pitches are debated (i.e. insertion of accidentals according to "musica ficta").

The final arbiter is not found in historical research but in how a modern performer wishes to hear the music.

[prémont]

Let's see. A self-appointed authority is someone who proclaims himself extremely knowledgeable in a given field and as such misses no opportunity to pontificate about, and lecture on, the topics of that field, possibly even throwing around some excommunications. Are you really saying, or implying, that this is indeed the case with Barenboim and Sokolov and Baroque music performance?

Maybe more Barenboim than Sokolov. But their claimed authority ia implied in their playing.

The Stalin of classical music, right?

I regard him [Glenn Gould] more as the McDonald's of classical music.

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

A nice example is Ingrid Haebler playing Mozart.

[prémont]

The final arbiter is not found in historical research but in how a modern performer wishes to hear the music.

We can't argue about that. As someone expressed it: We know something, the rest is qualified guess.

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

Read CPE Bach's book 'The True Art of Playing the Keyboard'. Or more easily, read excerpts of it in Strunk. CPE was all about expressive. In fact, it is why the style he adhered to was called "Empfindsam"... That was mid 18th century though, FWIW. Clavichords were around long before then, and I don't know much about that period. But CPEB didn't start out with a tabula rasa. 

[prémont]

A nice example is Ingrid Haebler playing Mozart.

Yes, a pity that her Mozart sonata set is so difficult to get hold of and so expensive.

[Florestan]

their claimed authority ia implied in their playing.

I can't help quoting Gurn here: bullshit.

[Florestan]

A nice example is Ingrid Haebler playing Mozart.

It might come as a surprise to you but it's one of my favorite sets. Her set of complete --- and I mean complete complete --- PCs is great, too.

[San Antone]

Maybe more Barenboim than Sokolov. But their claimed authority ia implied in their playing.

I regard him [Glenn Gould] more as the McDonald's of classical music.

I am opposed to any form of censorship of artistic expression.  Too often, the music police wish to impose their ideas on stylistic correctness (despite the futility of such attempts) through coercion in the public discourse (which is evident in this thread).

Daniel Barenboim and Glenn Gould are talented musicians, free to share their interpretations of Bach no less so than [insert your favorite HIP performer(s)].  You are of course under no obligation to buy or even listen to their recordings.

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

What makes you think I DO think that?  I never said that any modern musician is capable of not being influenced by what he/she grew up hearing and probably playing. However, you completely either overlook or disingenuously reject the fact that people actually work their whole lives to learn something different. The past is not a closed book, there are hundreds (thousands more likely) of documents about music from the 16th to the 19th century that explain in great detail exactly what is wanted of a musician. Is there some reason a talented musician from today would be incapable of learning from that, just as a barely literate one from 1750 was? I doubt it. Why do you have a problem with that? Perhaps because you are not a musician, and I will give you a pass for that. But believe me, a musician can deal with it.

You clearly don't have a grasp of what playing in an older style involves. Pulling an old keyboard out of the attic is barely even the first step. So old or new instrument has nothing to do with degree and everything top do with what is done with it by someone who knows what the hell they're doing. In that way, it is exactly like modern playing, in that a modern piano is no more than an anvil without someone who knows what they are doing at the controls. It's what they're doing that makes the difference.

[Karl Henning]

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.

It would not have been very artistic, if he had, would it have?

And on another point earlier (whose, I do not recall):  That there be one thing or way, and that one thing or way is exactly what the composer wants, always, is in my experience the exception rather than the rule.

[Gurn Blanston]

It would not have been very artistic, if he had, would it have?

And on another point earlier (whose, I do not recall):  That there be one thing or way, and that one thing or way is exactly what the composer wants, always, is in my experience the exception rather than the rule.

Very much so. I was going to call bullshit on that too, but what would be the point? If you listened to the same piece performed by 3 different period bands and 3 different modern bands, you would find as much or more variety in the period as you would in the modern, certainly in instrument sound, not to mention playing attack or mundane things like repeats. Even repeats vary hugely from performance to performance, there is no such thing as ritualistically taking (or skipping) every one. There is nothing written in stone, and for someone to imply that period style reflects that viewpoint actually irks me to some extent. But I'm a nice guy...  0:)

[Mandryka]

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.

The imagination is in the putting together of the independent voices to make something that sounds like music.

[Karl Henning]

The imagination is in the putting together of the independent voices to make something that sounds like music.

I fail to see how playing the voices as they rhythmically align in the score fails to "sound like music."  What am I missing?

[Mandryka]

Yes, a pity that her Mozart sonata set is so difficult to get hold of and so expensive.

There are two, Ill put the out of print one(s) on symphonyshare later

[Karl Henning]

While the discussion is ongoing, are we agreed on these points (to be added to as consensus deems right)?

   
• It's all speculation.
• Some of the speculation is better documented;  some of the speculation is wackier.
• Inflexibility is an exogenous imposition.

[Florestan]

While the discussion is ongoing, are we agreed on these points (to be added to as consensus deems right)?

   
• It's all speculation.
• Some of the speculation is better documented;  some of the speculation is wackier.
• Inflexibility is an exogenous imposition.

Count me in.