The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

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

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

Fair enough. I might have asked some rather silly questions.

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.

I agree. The reason I asked the question is that we are sometimes faced with the apparently paradoxical situation of the composers themselves taking liberties with their own scores, as recordings of Debussy, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev playing their own works attest. I tend to take this fact as hard evidence that even in the eyes of the composers themselves interpretation is more important than strict adherence to the score.

[Florestan]

Interesting articles.

Did Bach hate pianos?

nterpretation: A Case for a Broad Perspective

[Mandryka]

By the way, Florestan, Premont, there's a book on this area which I think is rather thought provoking, called "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goer (Oxford UP) I would like to have been more involved but I've been having a battle with a hose pipe all day. (automatic irrigation)

[Florestan]

By the way, Florestan, Premont, there's a book on this area which I think is rather thought provoking, called "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goer (Oxford UP)

Thanks.

[Mandryka]

That's Goehr.

[Mahlerian]

That's Goehr.

Daughter of composer Alexander Goehr, I believe.  I should read that book myself.

[Mandryka]

We should  have a study group here, take it chapter by chapter.

[Ken B]

Florestan

Have you read Homer?

In Attic Greek?

Have you heard him recited, in Attic Greek?

Do you think certain aspects of the poems that might strike one in a recital might elude one reading a paperback, if one understood the Greek?

Am I arguing against translating Homer here?

(Actually, all these questions work better for English speakers in re Chaucer, mutatis mutandis)

I had a friend who taught himself old Italian to be able to read Dante. When he read Dante in Italian does he get a better grasp of Dante's poem than I do reading it in English?  This, rather than Karlo's Rembrandt, strikes me as the closest analogy to the rationale for HIP.

[prémont]

By the way, Florestan, Premont, there's a book on this area which I think is rather thought provoking, called "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goer (Oxford UP) I would like to have been more involved but I've been having a battle with a hose pipe all day. (automatic irrigation)

If you say it is thought provoking and relevant, I shall acquire it.

I suppose you have drought in England, as we have here in my country.

[Mandryka]

If you say it is thought provoking and relevant, I shall acquire it.

I suppose you have drought in England, as we have here in my country.

Ni José pipe bans here yet, but there is a drought. The book is tough philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition.

[prémont]

The book is tough philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition.

Then it depends upon whether you think I am able to digest it and eventually participate in a discussion with you and others about the content. I understand that it at least partially discusses criterions for the identity of a musical work. An interesting but also somewhat elusive topic.

[Florestan]

Florestan

Have you read Homer?

In Attic Greek?

Have you heard him recited, in Attic Greek?

Do you think certain aspects of the poems that might strike one in a recital might elude one reading a paperback, if one understood the Greek?

Am I arguing against translating Homer here?

No, what you're actually arguing against is reading Homer in whatever language other than his Greek. The "HIP" approach is to hear Iliad recited in Homer's Greek. 

I had a friend who taught himself old Italian to be able to read Dante. When he read Dante in Italian does he get a better grasp of Dante's poem than I do reading it in English?  This, rather than Karlo's Rembrandt, strikes me as the closest analogy to the rationale for HIP.

And it strikes me as equally false, for reasons I don't have time now to expand upon.   

[Florestan]

Then it depends upon whether you think I am able to digest it

Judge for yourself:

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3237358/mod_resource/content/1/Lydia%20Goehr_The%20Imaginary%20Museum%20of%20Musical%20Works.pdf

[prémont]

Judge for yourself:

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3237358/mod_resource/content/1/Lydia%20Goehr_The%20Imaginary%20Museum%20of%20Musical%20Works.pdf

Thanks.

This looks like a heavy meal, and much too theoretical.
And already I have no sleeping problems.

[prémont]

No, what you're actually arguing against is reading Homer in whatever language other than his Greek. The "HIP" approach is to hear Iliad recited in Homer's Greek.

This is also my impression.

[Florestan]

Thanks.

This looks like a heavy meal, and much too theoretical.
And already I have no sleeping problems.

I went directly to the last chapter, the one about Werktreue but haven't finished it yet. Some interesting points but presented in a rather unfocused style. This is particularly thought-provoking: the canonization of music in the 19th century gave earlier composers that which they never had in their lifetime: carefully edited scores, multiple performances and eternal fame. (I tend to agree.)

I have a love-hate relationship with such books which often reminds me that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture". I mean, the ultimate meaning of music is to be found in listening to it, not in theorizing about it; as Hermann Scherchen once put it, "music should not be understood, it should be listened to." That is also why I have never had much use for music which is, or sounds like, the result of a purely intellectual construct / game devoid of anything even remotely resembling the feelings and thoughts of a flesh-and-blood human being.

[Mahlerian]

the ultimate meaning of music is to be found in listening to it, not in theorizing about it; as Hermann Scherchen once put it, "music should not be understood, it should be listened to." That is also why I have never had much use for music which is, or sounds like, the result of a purely intellectual construct / game devoid of anything even remotely resembling the feelings and thoughts of a flesh-and-blood human being.

Agreed in full.

The purpose of any music writing should be to bring us closer to the aesthetic experience of the music (unless it is meant to serve as training or instruction for musicians/musicologists).

Also, the purpose of music is that aesthetic experience itself.

[Marc]

One man's treasure etc. 

Thanks, listening right now. I'm not much of an organ guy, I'm afraid. Beside Haendel's Organ Concertos I can't name one single organ piece which I really like (not that I've listened to many). I like stylus fantasticus on violin, though, Biber and Schmelzer first and foremost, but the Italians were quite good at it as well. If you want something really wild try this:

Carlo Farina - Capriccio stravagante

https://www.youtube.com/v/-ux0yGwwWPs

It's extracted from a CD I reviewed here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21492.msg956897.html#msg956897

Yeah, this is great. Fitting like a glove. I didn't think it was all that wild, but I immediately liked it. I just love 17th and 18th century music.

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.

Well, it was worth the try.
I love the (baroque) organ. But if there was ever an intrument that SHOULD be listened to live...

[San Antone]

Currently embarking on a listening spell of the complete Mozart sonatas on fortepiano played by Bart van Oort.




The instruments used are mostly Walter fortepianos contemporaneous with the music (1785, 1795 and 1800) rebuilt/restored 1995-2002. Van Oort makes sure to explain the HIP logic and thought that went into the recordings (2004-2005). Extensive notes on the instruments and playing techniques, as well as on the music - 15 pages of densely packed notes in English only - no pics, no musical examples, just words. The HIP credentials of the enterprise seem totally kosher.

So, in all likelihood this is the real thing, as far as playing on a viennese fortepiano of the time can bring us to the sounds and keyboard mechanics available to Mozart in his time. It goes without saying that both instrument and piano playing are as different as could be from what Arrau, Brendel, Uchida, Gilels, Katin or Kraus offer us on their piano grands. I'm happy to have both POVs available in highly proficient and sensitive accounts from all these artists.

Not a fan, not that anyone cares.   

Although I prefer PI recordings of most early music, the one exception is solo keyboard music.  I have come close to detesting the sound of a fortepiano.  This confession comes years after forcing myself to purchase and repeatedly listen to Brautigam, Schornshieim, Beghin and all the others playing Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert on period instruments.

Baroque music fares somewhat better since many harpsichord recordings are mellow enough for me, but others are too strident and I easily grow tired of the sound.

Consequently I now prefer solo music from the Classical period on piano. 

[Ken B]

This is also my impression.

Then you and Andrei are guilty of the worst kind of intellectual laziness. You both assume that since I am asking questions I can only be doing so under false pretenses, to smuggle in an opinion that you think, based on nothing, that you know. So much easier than thinking about the questions, or imagining there could be other reasons for them.

So let me state it plainly. I think reading Chaucer in modern English is legitimate and makes sense. That is why I have done so. I also think my reading of him was enhanced by reading large chunks of him untranslated. This is not because some mythical legitimacy descended upon me, but because I could see aspects of the poem that I could not before.