The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

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.

I wasn't talking about Romantic techniques, I was talking about romantic* outcomes.

* notice the small r.

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

We're even now. 

I will agree that this post contains much speculation, is that what you are wanting?

No matter in the least if a composer, in his creative mind, wished somehow that he could make a big swell in this spot (for example), he still would not have written it to accomodate that swell because he knew it wasn't going to happen. That's why I say, they weren't time travelers, writing for the capabilities of a future generation. They wrote for the capabilities of what they had to work with.

However, they also spoke with people. A composer/musician knew everyone around who was in his business. He knew that guy down the road who made harpsichords, and if he had the idea of wanting a dynamic capability, then he went down the road and talked to him, and over a pipe and ale he said 'you know, Max, I wish I had some keyboard instrument that would allow me to make louder or softer sounds in my works'. And when Max figured out how to make that happen, 5, 10, 20 years later, he came back and showed our composer, who then figured out how to notate that idea and tried it out, and the entire genre changed. But nothing that he wrote before then changed, no matter in what philosophical terms you couch your argument, it isn't going to change the physical reality of what was.

I am sure that composers like Mozart saw the technical improvements and immediately their creative impulses were challenged to use them to the fullest. But that changes nothing about what came before. The music they wrote before was NOT written in anticipation of what Florestan would enjoy in 2018. Just sayin'...

[Karl Henning]

So true.

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.

Fair enough.

[Karl Henning]

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

Indeed.

[Gurn Blanston]

I wasn't talking about Romantic techniques, I was talking about romantic* outcomes.

* notice the small r.

OK, if it pleases you, I will say 19th century techniques. That's what they really were in any case.

[Florestan]

OK, if it pleases you, I will say 19th century techniques. That's what they really were in any case.

Does Ingrid Haebler use 19th century techniques?

[Gurn Blanston]

Does Ingrid Haebler use 19th century techniques?

I would say not many. More 18th century. Yes, she presses the keys, they did that in the 19th century. She doesn't appear to pedal very much at all, for example, which was a technique developed on English pianofortes in the 1790's to accommodate the huge sound they had. Viennese? Not so much. I'm not a pianist, so I can't really list all that stuff. I have read a book. It is something I always recommend to people.

[Mahlerian]

Pleas reread what I have written above, and realize that you have misunderstood it. Baroque performing philosophy nowadays does not at all imply a rigid adherence to the score.

Rigid adherence to the score is one of those things that shows up in this sort of context without any relevance.  HIP performers know as well as anyone that there is subjectivity involved in the performance of any music.  A robotic sort of accuracy isn't considered desirable by anyone that I'm aware of.

[Florestan]

I will agree that this post contains much speculation, is that what you are wanting?

What I want is to be able to enjoy my Bach or Scarlatti or Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven on a modern piano without being frowned upon and told that it's all a travesty and I shouldn't be listening to such atrocity. 

I couldn't care less if some piano technique could not be done on the harpsichord. If someone does it and what I hear pleases me and aligns with my taste and aesthetic preferences, I will continue listening to it, HIP dogmatism be damned. 

[Florestan]

I would say not many. More 18th century.

And yet the net result sounds quite romantic to my ears. That's why I made the distinction between technique and its outcome.

[Gurn Blanston]

Rigid adherence to the score is one of those things that shows up in this sort of context without any relevance.  HIP performers know as well as anyone that there is subjectivity involved in the performance of any music.  A robotic sort of accuracy isn't considered desirable by anyone that I'm aware of.

Well, you know, back ~1970 some early pioneer said that, who knows the actual context, and it has been a freaking albatross ever since. For some reason, people can't listen to the music as played and realize that each performance is individual and different from every other one, even by the same band. One of many things about this debate which pisses me off. Funny thing is, these same people have no problem listing how VPO is different from LG & LPO.   

[San Antone]

What I want is to be able to enjoy my Bach or Scarlatti or Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven on a modern piano without being frowned upon and told that it's all a travesty and I shouldn't be listening to such atrocity. 

I couldn't care less if some piano technique could not be done on the harpsichord. If someone does it and what I hear pleases me and aligns with my taste and aesthetic preferences, I will continue listening to it, HIP dogmatism be damned. 

When a HIP/PI fan's response to you is dripping with condescension it brings no credit to their cause.

Listen and let listen, I say.

[Gurn Blanston]

And yet the net result sounds quite romantic to my ears. That's why I made the distinction between technique and its outcome.

But that's an entirely subjective opinion. When I first bought and played Haebler, the first thought I had was "damn, I don't know how she does it, but she makes her modern piano sound like a fortepiano".  No after-ring, for example. Little sustain. I love it!  And that's subjective too. Shall I say "It sounds classic to my ears"?  OK, I'll play that.

[Florestan]

But that's an entirely subjective opinion. When I first bought and played Haebler, the first thought I had was "damn, I don't know how she does it, but she makes her modern piano sound like a fortepiano".  No after-ring, for example. Little sustain. I love it!  And that's subjective too. Shall I say "It sounds classic to my ears"?  OK, I'll play that.

"Sounds romantic" and "sounds like a fortepiano" are not mutually exclusive sentences.

[prémont]

Rigid adherence to the score is one of those things that shows up in this sort of context without any relevance.  HIP performers know as well as anyone that there is subjectivity involved in the performance of any music.  A robotic sort of accuracy isn't considered desirable by anyone that I'm aware of.

The concept was much used about 70 to 50 years ago. It almost had a religious aura about it. Baroque music was played "notentreue" and there was as well as no interpretation, only the notes and the pedantic executed rhythms including ornamentation. It was thought, that this way of playing was objective in an ideal way. Well known exponents for this style were in the area of Bach harpsichord playing Zuzana Ruzickova, Helmut Walcha, Martin Galling and Karl Richter.

[Mahlerian]

The concept was much used about 70 to 50 years ago. It almost had a religious aura about it. Baroque music was played "notentreue" and there was as well as no interpretation, only the notes and the pedantic executed rhythms including ornamentation. It was thought, that this way of playing was objective in an ideal way. Well known exponents for this style were in the area of Bach harpsichord playing Zuzana Ruzickova, Helmut Walcha, Martin Galling and Karl Richter.

I suppose it must have collapsed when the performers realized that even they didn't interpret the works in anything approaching an identical way...

[Ken B]

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.

He's closer to Bach with a piano than Gould is to Beethoven with a piano ....

*chucles evilly*

[Ken B]

I prefer Bach on harpsichord, but also listen to piano. There are great artists who record piano only. Schaffer, Hewitt.
Ives is a travesty on piano.

[Marc]

[...]
Ives is a travesty on piano.

Thanks to a fellow GMG member I am now listening to Bach and Scarlatti, played by the late Dutch accordionist Harry Mooten, in my country also known as 'De Grote Grijze Geitenbreier' ('The Great Grey Goat Knitter'). Some of those tracks are truly moving.
Baroque?
No.
Beautiful?
Yes!

[Gurn Blanston]

"Sounds romantic" and "sounds like a fortepiano" are not mutually exclusive sentences.

"romantic", without further definition, means nothing at all.