The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[San Antone]

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.

Well, much of what you wrote is addressed to a strawman, since my point had nothing to do with whether someone can learn from the historical sources.  My point is that process is a post-modernist exercise. (And btw, I am a musician with an advanced degree from music school.  I have also spent considerable amount of time reading and studying early music sources and treatises, so I also have an idea of how much hard evidence we have available and how much is speculative.) 

But for me those are not the issues. 

The overall musicality of a performance is of primary importance to me, not the instrument used or chasing an idea of "authenticity".  I enjoy many HIP/PI recordings but am under no illusion, nor do I care, that what I am hearing is "authentic". 

[prémont]

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

No, of course not. There are some modern musicians with very "consistent" interpretations or who avidly strives to do a definitive interpretation of some works. I always found this to work a bit against the spirit of the music, and I also think this way of thinking represents one of the less fortunate side-effects of the recording industry.

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.

Completely agreed. But there are obviously some things the composer did not want - even if we often only have indirect indications of these, and stylish playing is much about respecting these things.

[prémont]

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

Yes, a n older Philips and a newer Denon, as far as I know. I have only - long time ago - heard some of the Phiips. An upload would certainly be great.

[Mandryka]

Well, much of what you wrote is addressed to a strawman, since my point had nothing to do with whether someone can learn from the historical sources.  My point is that process is a post-modernist exercise. (And btw, I am a musician with an advanced degree from music school.  I have also spent considerable amount of time reading and studying early music sources and treatises, so I also have an idea of how much hard evidence we have available and how much is speculative.) 

But for me those are not the issues. 

The overall musicality of a performance is of primary importance to me, not the instrument used or chasing an idea of "authenticity".  I enjoy many HIP/PI recordings but am under no illusion, nor do I care, that what I am hearing is "authentic".

This word musicality is a problem of course, unless it means "what I like "

Somewhere in this conversation there was a brief discussion with me and Mahlerian about the idea of musical content. I think one idea of HIP is that, contingently,  the old instruments and old way of playing them,  bring out better the essential musical content, serve the music better. So, for instance, the muddy midrange of a modern piano doesn't serve baroque fugues as well as a baroque keyboard.

[prémont]

I can't help quoting Gurn here: bullshit.

I can't help quoting your quote from Gurn here: bullshit.

[prémont]

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

Of course it sounds like music when the voices are aligned as the score prescribes. But - as I wrote above - Rübsam's "method" adds a very original and distinctive expressive quality to the music. Listen to him, there are samples on his website.

https://www.wolfgangrubsam.com/

[San Antone]

This word musicality is a problem of course, unless it means "what I like "

Somewhere in this conversation there was a brief discussion with me and Mahlerian about the idea of musical content. I think one idea of HIP is that, contingently,  the old instruments and old way of playing them,  bring out better the essential musical content, serve the music better. So, for instance, the muddy midrange of a modern piano doesn't serve baroque fugues as well as a baroque keyboard.

Yes, of course, all of it is subjective: on the part of the audience as well as the performers.  I will agree that the texture of Baroque music suffers from some modern performances, but not all, and I'd venture to say the worst offenders are a thing of the past.

I'll sum up my view like this: HIP/PI recordings are no more authentic than Civil War re-enactments.  We are obsessed with trying to recapture the past (from typewriter fonts for our computers to shows like Mad Men) and if I were a cynical sort I'd make the claim that the entire HIP movement is a clever marketing tool; repackaging all of Bach and other early music with the cache of "authenticity" attached.

But I'm not a cynical sort and applaud the HIP camp because I see it as the most exciting thing to hit classical music in my lifetime.

[prémont]

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.

I would not call the documented parts for speculation.

And I do not understand, what you mean here (probably because of linguistic inability on my part) :

Inflexibility is an exogenous imposition.

[Florestan]

there are obviously some things the composer did not want - even if we often only have indirect indications of these, and stylish playing is much about respecting these things.

In respect with dynamic variations, we have direct evidence that the composers could not have made use of them on a harpsichord except in a very limited way --- the instrument itself could not accomodate them. But what evidence do we have, direct or indirect, that the composers did really not want them and? They were not able to have them, but to infer from this that they didn't want them is pure speculation. One can as well speculate that they actually wanted them but contended themselves to not having them faute de mieux (ie, absent an instrument capable of rendering them). There is no way to know. Leonhardt is spot on.

I can't help quoting you quote from Gurn here: bullshit.

We're even now. 

[North Star]

I'll sum up my view like this: HIP/PI recordings are no more authentic than Civil War re-enactments.  We are obsessed with trying to recapture the past and if I were a cynical sort I'd make the claim that the entire HIP movement is a clever marketing tool; repackaging all of Bach and other early music with the cache of "authenticity" attached.

Well I'm sure we can all agree that submarines, tanks and bazookas have no place in a Civil War re-enactment.

[Florestan]

Well I'm sure we can all agree that submarines, tanks and bazookas have no place in a Civil War re-enactment.

I don't agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine)

[Karl Henning]

I would not call the documented parts for speculation.

Documents, of course, are facts;  but (unless I greatly misunderstand) the documents do not furnish a complete picture.

And I do not understand, what you mean here (probably because of linguistic inability on my part) :

Inflexibility of doctrine is something which a modern person brings to the material, it is not inherent to the era.

[North Star]

I don't agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine)

I did, briefly, contemplate if I should write 'nuclear submarines'. 

[Karl Henning]

The Monitor and Merrimack were . . . something else!


And . . . literally in the case of Merrimack, she became the CSS Virginia.

[Florestan]

I did, briefly, contemplate if I should write 'nuclear submarines'. 

I'm sure that if ever an opera was written about the HL Lunley episode of the Civil War some Regietheater guy would have one used onstage. 

[prémont]

In respect with dynamic variations, we have direct evidence that the composers could not have made use of them on a harpsichord except in a very limited way --- the instrument itself could not accomodate them. But what evidence do we have, direct or indirect, that the composers did really not want them and? They were not able to have them, but to infer from this that they didn't want them is pure speculation. One can as well speculate that they actually wanted them but contended themselves to not having them faute de mieux (ie, absent an instrument capable of rendering them). There is no way to know. Leonhardt is spot on.

I will call it a qualified guess, that dynamic variations of that kind pianos can make, played no important role in Bach's idea of harpsichord- and organ music.

We're even now. 

What the deuce...

[prémont]

Documents, of course, are facts;  but (unless I greatly misunderstand) the documents do not furnish a complete picture.

So true.

Inflexibility of doctrine is something which a modern person brings to the material, it is not inherent to the era.

Hard to know if it is inherent to the area. Sometimes it may be. But often we know so little about the area, that the antithesis flexibility/inflexibility becomes pointless.

[Florestan]

All this debate remninded me of an anecdote told about the great 19-the century French actor Mounet-Sully. He was rehearsing a play about the massacre of the Huguenots (1572) and at one point he had to take an oath "on an old Bible" (so the script run). He is presented with a common 19th century Bible. "No way!", he shouts, "the script says an old Bible, I demand an old Bible!" After some febrile and tiresome searching, they give him a Bible from 1570. Replies Mounet-Sully: "That won't do either! Back then it was new!"

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

Haebler was a modern pianist who switched over to fortepiano and really learned technique well, then occasionally switched back to modern piano and played it with a fortepiano technique. It is no surprise to me that you like Haebler, except that she eschews the various Romantic techniques that you were talking about yesterday. She plays a bitchin' Mozart, as well as J.C. Bach and even Haydn, both on fortepiano though.

[prémont]

Yes, of course, all of it is subjective: on the part of the audience as well as the performers.  I will agree that the texture of Baroque music suffers from some modern performances, but not all, and I'd venture to say the worst offenders are a thing of the past.

Yes, fortunately. But some have cast a long shadow.

I'll sum up my view like this: HIP/PI recordings are no more authentic.

The word "authentic" should be banned in this context. It implies more authority, than the circumstances allow. We should choose a less conductive expression.