The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Karl Henning]

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

Part of the problem of the organ being less portable than a clarinet 

[prémont]

Then playing Beethoven's sonatas on stage before an audience is absolutely and utterly un-HIP,

Yes, logically it is un-HIP to play Beethoven sonatas before a larger audience, because you will need to use a modern grand. 

[Florestan]

Yes, logically it is un-HIP to play Beethoven sonatas before a larger audience, because you will need to use a modern grand. 

A-ha!

What's your solution to this conundrum?

[prémont]

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

Should be clear. Listen e.g. to a violin with gut strings and one with steel strings. Do you not think the character of the sound is widely different?

[prémont]

A-ha!

What's your solution to this conundrum?

Period instruments and more intimate venues.

[Florestan]

Period instruments and more intimate venues.

How many people in the audience?

And for recordings, what?

[prémont]

How many people in the audience?

No more than it remains possible for everybody to hear the period instrument clearly.

And for recordings, what?

Same argument, depends on the gear and the listening venue.

[Florestan]

No more than it remains possible for everybody to hear the period instrument clearly.

Same argument, depends on the gear and the listening venue.

Let me see if I get this right. In the name of hearing the music as it must have been heard at the time of its first performance or shortly thereafter --- because that's what HIP boils down to --- what you essentially argue for is returning to a practice where listening to music is reserved to a happy few --- the aristocracy back then, the highest bidder today (for I can see no other way of selling 20 tickets for a concert which hundreds of people would like to attend).

And why stop half-way at the instruments and venues? How the music was originally heard depended on a lot of other factors. Why not asking, too and logically, for the music to be played by under-rehearsed (semi)proffessionals, oftenly mixed with, or replaced by, more or less profficient amateurs? Why not asking for candlelit, unheated rooms? Or consider this: in many cases the premiere of a work, which was its last public performance as well, was given by the composer himself --- since he is no more available, a consistently HIP approach would require that those works be not performed at all any more. Or: Haydn's keyboard sonatas were written mostly for amateur ladies; what business has Ronald Brautigam, a professional male, playing them?

As for recordings, given that even the most SOTA one distorts the sound, they are automatically un-HIP and should be prohibited.

Please, think about it and you'll see that all this is much less absurd than it seems --- it's actually the only too logical and inescapable consequence of pursuing the utopian ideal of hearing the music as it must have been heard back then. And bottom line, why is of such paramount importance that we hear it this way?

[Karl Henning]

A bit of conflation, here.  You've asked for his solution.  I do not recall his saying that his solution must serve everyone.

[Madiel]

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.

This is perhaps true as a general principle, but there are in fact composers who expressed their views on what they were looking for, AND composers who actually participated in the development of musical instruments.

To stick with Bach, I seem to recall he did look at some early fortepianos but didn't think much of them.

[Madiel]

Also, while we're talking about Beethoven and pianos, didn't he have some connection to the expanded compass of the piano? His music went further into the extreme registers over time as pianos became available that could play those notes.

[Madiel]

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.

You misunderstand me on this point. The issue is that there are obscure references in Bach's scores to instruments that we don't know, at least not by those names. It's a distinct possibility that instruments were made for Bach for his purposes, that failed to catch on more widely and so didn't continue to be made.

I'd have to go back to look at the notes of the relevant volumes of the Maasaki Suzuki set to be certain, but I seem to remember them saying they actually constructed instruments for the purposes of those recordings, based on educated guesses about the instrument Bach had.   Which is all very well if you have the capacity to construct instruments. But it does raise a serious question when there's a strong emphasis on HIP: what are you supposed to do if the instrument no longer exists, or is extremely rare? Just stop playing the music?

I think people sometimes forget, in a world where recordings of Bach on harpsichord are now so readily available, that for a damn long time people weren't playing Bach on harpsichord because hardly anyone had a harpsichord. They're still not something people find in a home the way pianos can be found.

By contrast, I'm not sure if there are very many recordings of Schubert's Arpeggione sonata that are actually on an arpeggione, because hardly anyone has an arpeggione. I'm aware of one recording of Schumann's works for pedal piano that are in fact on a pedal piano. Most recordings of Ravel's Tzigane do not use a luthéal because people simply don't have luthéals.

People can only afford to be dogmatic about using the "right" instruments when those instruments are actually available.

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

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.

Unquestionably so.  

But specifically I meant being able to use previously unused instruments in the orchestra. That was another driving force, yes? And the unseen (but not unheard) side effect is that the brilliant sound of the trumpet was degraded by the valves. Nothing is free.

[prémont]

Let me see if I get this right. In the name of hearing the music as it must have been heard at the time of its first performance or shortly thereafter --- because that's what HIP boils down to -....

I find your conclusions a bit overdone. I am a HIP enthusiast, but not a fanatic. I prefer period instruments and informed playing, but all the non-musical circumstances (candlelight, unheated rooms, wigs et c.) are utterly irrelevant in a purely musical context.

And a recording and the listening situation is of course an abstraction, and in my view it never had the purpose to imitate any given historical situation, not the least because the listening takes place in your own living room, which has its own acoustical properties. I am fully satisfied, when the recording gives me a convincing sound picture of the instrument(s) used, and then the rest of the listening work takes place i my brain here and now, and not in an imagined past. When listening to music I concentrate upon the music, and this is why I am rather unenthusiastic about DVDs - even the sight of the pianists fingers may be to distracting. If I look at anything, when listening to music, it is the score. Else I prefer to close my eyes.

[prémont]

Also, while we're talking about Beethoven and pianos, didn't he have some connection to the expanded compass of the piano? His music went further into the extreme registers over time as pianos became available that could play those notes.

This is true, there have been composers, who participated in the development of instruments, but they could not - as I wrote above - know, how the end result would be. Beethoven is an ambiguous example, since he probably not even was able to hear the sound of the end result properly.

[prémont]

But specifically I meant being able to use previously unused instruments in the orchestra. That was another driving force, yes? And the unseen (but not unheard) side effect is that the brilliant sound of the trumpet was degraded by the valves. Nothing is free.

Yes.

[Florestan]

I find your conclusions a bit overdone. I am a HIP enthusiast, but not a fanatic. I prefer period instruments and informed playing, but all the non-musical circumstances (candlelight, unheated rooms, wigs et c.) are utterly irrelevant in a purely musical context.

Yes, granted --- but under-rehearsed professionals and more or less profficient amateurs are not irrelevant --- in many (most?) cases they were the very vehicle by which the music was heard. It's like hearing an average college orchestra playing Eroica, as opposed to hearing it played by, say, Orchestre Revolutionnaire and Romantique. Would you like to address this point?

If I look at anything, when listening to music, it is the score.

Would you say that the score is the most faithful, or maybe even the only one, representative of any given composer's wishes?

Oh, and I forgot: a truly HIP concert should last some 4 hours and feature symphonic, chamber and solo instrumental music interspersed with vocal pieces, and the movements of the symphonic works might not be played uninterruptedly. Do you agree?

[Florestan]

Beethoven is an ambiguous example, since he probably not even was able to hear the sound of the end result properly.

That's actually a very good point.

[prémont]

You misunderstand me on this point. The issue is that there are obscure references in Bach's scores to instruments that we don't know, at least not by those names. It's a distinct possibility that instruments were made for Bach for his purposes, that failed to catch on more widely and so didn't continue to be made.

I'd have to go back to look at the notes of the relevant volumes of the Maasaki Suzuki set to be certain, but I seem to remember them saying they actually constructed instruments for the purposes of those recordings, based on educated guesses about the instrument Bach had.   Which is all very well if you have the capacity to construct instruments. But it does raise a serious question when there's a strong emphasis on HIP: what are you supposed to do if the instrument no longer exists, or is extremely rare? Just stop playing the music?

I think people sometimes forget, in a world where recordings of Bach on harpsichord are now so readily available, that for a damn long time people weren't playing Bach on harpsichord because hardly anyone had a harpsichord. They're still not something people find in a home the way pianos can be found.

By contrast, I'm not sure if there are very many recordings of Schubert's Arpeggione sonata that are actually on an arpeggione, because hardly anyone has an arpeggione. I'm aware of one recording of Schumann's works for pedal piano that are in fact on a pedal piano. Most recordings of Ravel's Tzigane do not use a luthéal because people simply don't have luthéals.

People can only afford to be dogmatic about using the "right" instruments when those instruments are actually available.

I agree with all this. The instruments must have existed at Bach's time, but seem to have got out of use. And if we do not know exactly how they were made, we can only hope to make some which are somewhat similar. But all reconstruction of period instruments implies lots of compromises. Think of all these medieval instruments, where the basis for reconstruction first and foremost is iconographic evidence. I think this issue has been evident for all serious and informed instrument makers, musicians and music enthusiasts all the time, and that the worn out counterarguments only have been used by uninformed people.

[prémont]

Yes, granted --- but under-rehearsed professionals and more or less profficient amateurs are not irrelevant --- in many (most?) cases they were the very vehicle by which the music was heard. It's like hearing an average college orchestra playing Eroica, as opposed to hearing it played by, say, Orchestre Revolutionnaire and Romantique. Would you like to address this point?

Once more: I do not regard the imitation of some dubious premiere performances or other historical performances to be something to strive towards.

Would you say that the score is the most faithful, or maybe even the only one, representative of any given composer's wishes?

It is most often the only thing we have left about the composers wishes, and as such it is very important, but it needs usually much expertise to interpret it, both graphically and musically.

Oh, and I forgot: a truly HIP concert should last some 4 hours and feature symphonic, chamber and solo instrumental music interspersed with vocal pieces, and the movements of the symphonic works might not be played uninterruptedly. Do you agree?

And what then....? I listen to the music I want, and when I want.