The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

CPE and Telemann are the only 2 actual 18th century German composers I like muchly.

Drat! I mentioned the godfather but forgot to mention to mention the godson. CPE Bach is a firm favorite of mine. And btw, you might have yourself forgotten someone. Guess who. 

[Florestan]

I would like to propose you all a little game. Here are two versions of the 2nd movement Andante cantabile from Tchaikovsky' String Quartet No. 1 in D major op. 11.

https://www.youtube.com/v/AkUhVDh3uQo

https://www.youtube.com/v/zl3ckjAgxqI

Please listen to them both and let us know which one do you like more (just that, without going into any explanations). Thanks for participating.

[prémont]

Composition is an act of imagination.

Anyone who asserts that a composer could not possibly have conceived ideas about the performance of their music that were not possible at the time that they composed it, is limiting the composer's imagination in a way that is unlikely to reflect how composers actually think..

But no matter how much composers use their imagination, they can not see into the future. And we have no proof that the development of musical instruments corresponded in any way to the imagination of a given composer.

[prémont]

Please listen to them both and let us know which one do you like more (just that, without going into any explanations). Thanks for participating.

I on my part prefer no.2, but my experience with this kind of music is too limited to say which one is most in accordance with the composers style.

[prémont]

I should also add that the Maasaki Suzuki set of Bach cantatas raises the possibility that Bach actually invented, or contributed to the invention of, some obscure instruments for the purposes of some of those cantatas, as they discuss what references to some unusual instruments in the score are actually supposed to be.

Don't just tell me what Bach did. Bach also dreamed.

Bach's scores of the sacred cantatas were made for the weekly performances, so without doubt Bach had existing instruments in mind and not instruments, which maybe might be constructed in the future.

[Florestan]

I on my part prefer no.2

Thank you. If you don't mind, I'll wait for more responses (provided they come...  ) before expressing my thoughts.

But no matter how much composers use their imagination, they can not see into the future. And we have no proof that the development of musical instruments corresponded in any way to the imagination of a given composer.

In your opinion, what was the motivation behind the development of musical instruments?

[prémont]

The Buxtehude prelude just finished. I would really like to say I liked it, but I didn't. I didn't dislike it, either. It just did nothing for me. I'm truly sorry for such a negative feedback but can't help it.    I'll give you, though, that hearing it live in a church might very well change my opinion for the better.

That's a good point. I am on my part almost sure that the fact that I have listened to lots of organ concertos live and also played the instrument myself is an important factor for me when it comes to the appreciation of the organ and its music. So I understand well that a listener who only knows the music from recordings feels a bit alienated in relation to it.

[prémont]

Thank you. If you don't mind, I'll wait for more responses (provided they come...  ) before expressing my thoughts.

In your opinion, what was the motivation behind the development of musical instruments?

There were many reasons. In the last two centuries the wish for more volume was decisive, even if it affected the character of the instruments very much by changing the partials, and another reason was the wish for more finger friendly playing technique, which also became possible by the accept of equal tuning, which however changed the character of the modes completely.

[Florestan]

There were many reasons. In the last two centuries the wish for more volume was decisive, even if it affected the character of the instruments very much by changing the partials, and another reason was the wish for more finger friendly playing technique, which also became possible by the accept of equal tuning, which however changed the character of the modes completely.

And whose wishes were those?

[prémont]

And whose wishes were those?

Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments, they could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.

[Karl Henning]

That's a good point. I am on my part almost sure that the fact that I have listened to lots of organ concertos live and also played the instrument myself is an important factor for me when it comes to the appreciation of the organ and its music. So I understand well that a listener who only knows the music from recordings feels a bit alienated in relation to it.

Indeed.

Andrei, I do hope you can get to hear some Buxtehude in a church (or, of course, any concert space with a fine organ).  It's nigh unto a crime that such excellent music should do nothing for you!

[Karl Henning]

Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments, they could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.

There are practically always unintended consequences.  And once a horse is out of the barn, we may or may not be able to force it back in . . . .

[Florestan]

Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments

What's so theoretical about it? You just said that composers wished for more volume and more player-friendly techniques. In my book this logically implies two things:

(1) that they expected technical developments to be made (for how could their wishes be met without them?), and in this respect I fail to see any substantial difference between "expecting them" and "foreseeing them";

and

(2) that had they lived long enough to see their wishes met by these technical developments they'd have welcome and used them (for to believe otherwise is to believe that they wished for something but would have objected to the means of getting that something).

AfaIk, there is evidence that those composers who actually witnessed the development of the instruments welcome it and willingly switched to the newer / newest ones (for instance Clementi --- who has actually been personally involved in the development --- Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin).

they could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.

If they wished for more volume they surely had the clear idea that the instruments would sound louder.

[Florestan]

Andrei, I do hope you can get to hear some Buxtehude in a church (or, of course, any concert space with a fine organ). 

I will jump at every opportunity but alas!, I don't expect any to come my way any time soon.

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, it was combined wishes from composers, musicians and audience - among others the wish for doing concerts in large rooms. But even if composers were able - theoretically - to foresee some technical developments, they could not foresee what would be lost in return, and for that reason they could not have any idea of what the instruments would sound like in the future.

A truly major force you leave off your list is what we call today concert promoters. After 1800 mainly, public concert going became the norm rather than the rare exception, and the need for instruments which were above all loud was the driving force. Even with wind instruments, homogeneity was more or less forced upon the sound by designing to accommodate the need for loudness. In keyboards, it was the iron frame for the strings.

Some of it was also the desire to be able to use tone colors more effectively. I explained this to some degree in this essay about the trumpet concerto.. Composers really wanted the sound of trumpets in the orchestra, but were only able to work them in if the key of the work was C or D or in some inner movement that could use those notes. That's why it was effectively excluded before 1820 when the valve trumpet came along. That wasn't serendipity, it was the result of at least 75 years of hard research.

In short, it is supply and demand which drove instrument development. The main demand, but not the only one, was being able to fill ever larger concert halls and make the paying customers happy. The supply became driven by the composers who took full advantage of the newe possibilities and pushed them to the limit. Then the limit changed, then the composers caught up. This continued throughout the 19th century. Instruments as we know them today were fairly effectively complete by the time the 20th century got here. They had their 2 main characteristics: loud and homogeneous. 

[Gurn Blanston]

What's so theoretical about it? You just said that composers wished for more volume and more player-friendly techniques. In my book this logically implies two things:

(1) that they expected technical developments to be made (for how could their wishes be met without them?), and in this respect I fail to see any substantial difference between "expecting them" and "foreseeing them";

and

(2) that had they lived long enough to see their wishes met by these technical developments they'd have welcome and used them (for to believe otherwise is to believe that they wished for something but would have objected to the means of getting that something).

AfaIk, there is evidence that those composers who actually witnessed the development of the instruments welcome it and willingly switched to the newer / newest ones (for instance Clementi --- who has actually been personally involved in the development --- Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin).


If they wished for more volume they surely had the clear idea that the instruments would sound louder.

Even if they desired all this, THAT DOESN'T MEAN that they wrote for it NOW!  There, I hope you're happy, you made me shout. Yes, if the sort of music they were writing was some that would take advantage of new capabilities, many composers certainly tried to exploit them. You should think of this though: Beethoven's keyboard sonatas weren't played on stage before an audience in his lifetime. That's important in shaping how you think about this. Other than in London, string quartets were never played in public. Why would I need steel strings and all the other accoutrements for generating volume when I am playing in your library? Haydn used new ways to get attention in Op 71 & 74 for the first time because he never needed them before. He didn't need them after either. They wrote for the conditions that prevailed at the time, not in some putative future state.

[prémont]

If they wished for more volume they surely had the clear idea that the instruments would sound louder.

Yes louder, but they could not foresee how the character of the sound would be.

[Florestan]

Even if they desired all this, THAT DOESN'T MEAN that they wrote for it NOW!  There, I hope you're happy, you made me shout.

A beer might help cooling off. 

Beethoven's keyboard sonatas weren't played on stage before an audience in his lifetime. That's important in shaping how you think about this. Other than in London, string quartets were never played in public.

Then playing Beethoven's sonatas on stage before an audience is absolutely and utterly un-HIP, and so is playing Haydn's string quartets in public anywhere else than in London.

[Florestan]

Yes louder, but they could not foresee how the character of the sound would be.

What do you mean by "the character of the sound"?

[prémont]

A truly major force you leave off your list is what we call today concert promoters.

Well I only hinted at those, in order not to make a too long post. But there is no reason to deny the commercial interests in these developments.

Some of it was also the desire to be able to use tone colors more effectively.

But my point is that the composers could not know to which degree the tone colors were to change. There is a reason why you and I prefer period instruments.