The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[amw]

For one example, it's historically inaccurate to expect performers who are not the composer to perform exactly what the composer wanted (at least for all instrumental music composed after, say, 1791, and all operatic music composed after, say, 1845). Beethoven was the first composer to actually get mad at people who added their own ornamentation and improvisation—prior to that doing so was pretty much expected. So it's arguably much more of a distortion to hear a Mozart sonata or Bach partita or Rossini aria exactly as Mozart or Bach or Rossini wrote it than as ornamented by the performer.

[Mandryka]

When I say something, what I mean is independent of my intentions. The speaker does not create the meaning of the expressions, it's the way the community of speakers responds to the words which make the utterance meaningful (this is Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument)

If I say "snow is white" and someone interprets my utterance as meaning that snow is grey, that would be a false interpretation, a parody of what I said. Mutatis mutandis if someone interprets the Goldberg Variations on a piano. Or, more interestingly, a baroque fugue on an instrument (like a modern piano) with a muddy mid range.

Re amw's point about ornamentation, I suppose a pianist like Schiff sees dynamic variation as a bit like ornamentation - something he can do at his discretion. That's why I was interested to find out what clavichord manuals (or indeed lute, violin, viol) said about dynamics - were dynamics normally at the performer's discretion, like rubato and ornamentation?

[prémont]

Slavishly trying to capture a composer's intentions does not equal a rewarding performance.  It might, but then again, going a way not intended or anticipated by the composer might render a greater performance.  One the composer might enjoy more than his intended version.

It is logical that a performance on a harpsichord probably will display more of Bach's aesthetics and intensions than a performance on a modern grand, but of course it is no guarantee - everything depends on the performer. And of course a performance on a modern grand may reveal new aspects not included in Bach's intensions -  everything still depends on the performer. But there is a great risk, that these "new" aspects are uninteresting at best and irrelevant at worst. This also corresponds to my experience. I think the great popularity of the piano for Bach's keyboard works has more to do with the fact, that listeners still nowadays are more familiar with piano sound and piano aesthetics (read Romantic aesthetics) than to harpsichord sound, and as such it depends on circumstances, which in Bach's case has nothing to do with the music in question. But it is indeed possible to go back in time mentally and familiarize oneself with the harpsichord. An early pianoforte as Bach knew it might be a satisfying solution for some of his later harpsichord music, because the pianoforte with its rich spectrum of partials resembles a harpsichord more than a modern grand does.

[prémont]

For one example, it's historically inaccurate to expect performers who are not the composer to perform exactly what the composer wanted (at least for all instrumental music composed after, say, 1791, and all operatic music composed after, say, 1845). Beethoven was the first composer to actually get mad at people who added their own ornamentation and improvisation—prior to that doing so was pretty much expected. So it's arguably much more of a distortion to hear a Mozart sonata or Bach partita or Rossini aria exactly as Mozart or Bach or Rossini wrote it than as ornamented by the performer.

Many HIP performers of Baroque music add their own ornamentation and are in this way obeying the composers expectations, while many non-HIP pianists just play the plain music without added ornamentation. "Instead" they add their dynamic variations, which may be completely irrelevant (e.g. Kempff's Goldbergs).

[prémont]

Re amw's point about ornamentation, I suppose a pianist like Schiff sees dynamic variation as a bit like ornamentation - something he can do at his discretion. That's why I was interested to find out what clavichord manuals (or indeed lute, violin, viol) said about dynamics - were dynamics normally at the performer's discretion, like rubato and ornamentation?

Even if a modest dynamic variation was part of clavichord aesthetics, this does not imply that it was a "shadow-part" of harpsichord- and organ aesthetics.

Bach is reported to have played the violin "loud and clear" (I think it is Forkel). This may be interpreted as if he used only a little dynamic variation - or nothing at all.

[Mandryka]

The music is independent of the composer's intentions as soon as someone other than the composer performs it.  The music has a life of its own completely separate from the composer, and the composer's intentions are merely one among an infinite number of other intentions concerning how the music should go.

Slavishly trying to capture a composer's intentions does not equal a rewarding performance.  It might, but then again, going a way not intended or anticipated by the composer might render a greater performance.  One the composer might enjoy more than his intended version.

Performers are of equal stature, imo, to the composer.  It is a necessary partnership to realize the music.

Here's an argument to show that some music is better played on a harpsichord than on an early Italian organ, notice how he uses the composers' intentions as expressed in the score

but there is one more objection to performance of Cavazzoni and other ricercarists on organs. The way the ranks of the Italian church organ are built up weighs them heavily to the treble. There are no mixtures to balance the bass (although smaller registers break back when their pipes become too small). Large organs even sometimes have additional ranks of principal pipes in the discant. . . .  Recordings, as well as my own experiences as performer and listener, confirm that lower contrapuntal voices come through poorly. This, however, is a general problem with all big organs, as noted by Arnold Schlick in his Spiegel as early as 1511, which the Germans tried to solve by adding independent pedal divisions. It is no problem at all on the harpsichord, which is why I, for one, will always prefer it for polyphony. In addition to this difficulty, there are many passages in Cavazzoni's ricercars where all the voices cluster in the lower range. These are reduced to mud on any organ.

Look at what's going on.

1. We have a score
2. We think we understand the normal conventions about what that score means
3. We can see, in the light of 2, that a certain sort of texture of sound is best for interpreting the score in music
4. We know that some instruments are better at this texture than others

Of course, you're free to play a Willaert ricercar on a piano, and you're free to like it. But that's not the point. What would be interesting is if someone said (like Andrei) that playing it on a piano or Italian organ or whatever revealed things about the music which were obscured by the harpsichord.

[amw]

Many HIP performers of Baroque music add their own ornamentation and are in this way obeying the composers expectations, while many non-HIP pianists just play the plain music without added ornamentation. "Instead" they add their dynamic variations, which may be completely irrelevant (e.g. Kempff's Goldbergs).

I wasn't trying to make a point in favour of or against HIP performers here, just noting that ornamentation is something rarely mentioned & sometimes taken exception to when it appears (eg I remember some people having objections to Robert Levin's Mozart sonatas because of the ornamentation).

[Mandryka]

For one example, it's historically inaccurate to expect performers who are not the composer to perform exactly what the composer wanted (at least for all instrumental music composed after, say, 1791, and all operatic music composed after, say, 1845). Beethoven was the first composer to actually get mad at people who added their own ornamentation and improvisation—prior to that doing so was pretty much expected. So it's arguably much more of a distortion to hear a Mozart sonata or Bach partita or Rossini aria exactly as Mozart or Bach or Rossini wrote it than as ornamented by the performer.

Maybe the piano made creative ornamentation go out of style, just because there are other, easier, things you can do to embellish the music -- dynamics, tone colour etc. Also the piano developed at a time when the performer's intervention was becoming less trusted -- you see it with fully written out cadenzas.

[prémont]

Here's an argument to show that some music is better played on a harpsichord than on an early Italian organ, notice how he uses the composers' intentions as expressed in the score

Maybe there is a tendency to intellectualize the counterpoint too much. How clearly did Renaissance composers want their polyphony to be heard, and how educated were the listeners? We know too little about this. In a church, where the organs are, we will meet a large number of less educated listeners. And did Cavazzoni really want all his counterpoint to be unambiguously perceived by the listener, or was it more about the wholeness of the work? Like a Gothic cathedral where you quickly lose the overview, if you look at the individual stones. Even when I listen to a Bach fugue I do not perceive every little contrapuntal detail.This would make the listening proces insurmountable.

[Mandryka]

Maybe there is a tendency to intellectualize the counterpoint too much. How clearly did Renaissance composers want their polyphony to be heard, and how educated were the listeners? We know too little about this. In a church, where the organs are, we will meet a large number of less educated listeners. And did Cavazzoni really want all his counterpoint to be unambiguously perceived by the listener, or was it more about the wholeness of the work? Like a Gothic cathedral where you quickly lose the overview, if you look at the individual stones. Even when I listen to a Bach fugue I do not perceive every little contrapuntal detail.This would make the listening proces insurmountable.

Notice though that the argument isn't



Cavazzoni wanted them played like this

and

A harpsichord can achieve it better than an organ

hence

use a harpsichord

It's not a HIP argument. It's an argument from a feature of the score, i.e. its polyphony and, I guess, the polyophony being an essential feature. How Cavazzoni envisaged it would in fact be played, or what his audience expected or enjoyed, is not strictly part of Glen Wilson's argument. I imagine that Glen Wilson wouldn't object to playing the ricerari on German organs.

[prémont]

Notice though that the argument isn't



Cavazzoni wanted them played like this

and

A harpsichord can achieve it better than an organ

hence

use a harpsichord

It's not a HIP argument. It's an argument from a feature of the score, i.e. its polyphony and, I guess, the polyophony being an essential feature. How Cavazzoni envisaged it would in fact be played, or what his audience expected or enjoyed, is not strictly part of Glen Wilson's argument. I imagine that Glen Wilson wouldn't object to playing the ricerari on German organs.

No, the argument is (a bit circular): I, Glen Wilson, want the ricercari played, in a way that makes the polyphony stand out. This is why I use the harpsichord, which does this better than the old Italian organs.

But given the properties of these old Italian organs, I just wondered, how much the composer intended the polyphony to stand out. Not that we ever shall know.

[amw]

Maybe the piano made creative ornamentation go out of style, just because there are other, easier, things you can do to embellish the music -- dynamics, tone colour etc. Also the piano developed at a time when the performer's intervention was becoming less trusted -- you see it with fully written out cadenzas.

I mean a large part was the rise of public performance and pianist-composers wanting to immortalise their exploits and/or make them notatable for their students to learn from. Certainly this looks very much more impressive and intimidating than an unornamented version, even if it's basically more or less what a pianist of the same period would play when ornamenting any Beethoven or Mozart piano concerto.

[Florestan]

Okay, so...?

So nothing, just a joke. Why are you so serious all the time?

[Florestan]

As I've said before, I enjoy many HIP/PI performances/recordings, but not because they are historically "correct".  I enjoy them because I like the way the instruments sound.  But if I don't like how the instruments sound, as is the case with a fortepiano, then no amount of information as to how historically accurate the instrument may be for the period will cause me to like the recording more.

My thoughts exactly. I usually have no problems listening to HIP performances of orchestral or chamber music, or (some) fortepianos. It's the sound of the harpsichord that give me headache.

The music is independent of the composer's intentions as soon as someone other than the composer performs it.  The music has a life of its own completely separate from the composer, and the composer's intentions are merely one among an infinite number of other intentions concerning how the music should go.

Performers are of equal stature, imo, to the composer.  It is a necessary partnership to realize the music.

This, which can be see most clearly in recordings of Debussy, Rachmaninoff or Prokofiev playing their own works and taking many liberties with their own scores. Furthermore: George Copeland was regarded by Debussy as the best intepreter of his piano music yet he too departed from the score; when Debussy asked him why he played the beginning of some piece the way he played, Copeland replied "I feel it this way" to which Debussy responded "Well, I feel it differently, but by all means go on playing your way".

[Florestan]

What would be interesting is if someone said (like Andrei) that playing it on a piano [...] revealed things about the music which were obscured by the harpsichord.

Well, for me the piano reveals first and foremost the music itself. I really have a hard time following melodic and bass lines on a harpsichord, to my ears it's all a muddy "plink selon plonk" without any structure or continuity. Play the same piece on the piano and everything becomes crystal clear: the melody, the bass, the voices are distinct and I can follow them.

I think the great popularity of the piano for Bach's keyboard works has more to do with the fact, that listeners still nowadays are more familiar with piano sound and piano aesthetics (read Romantic aesthetics) than to harpsichord sound

That is obviously true but there is a reason (actually, many reasons) for why the harpsichord has been abandoned as a viable instrument from the very early 1800s until the 1930s and also for why the Romantic piano aesthetics has been so hugely popular for the last two centuries. Trying to bring the harpsichord back to the forefront again is like trying to revert the time arrow (pace Gurn)

But it is indeed possible to go back in time mentally and familiarize oneself with the harpsichord. An early pianoforte as Bach knew it might be a satisfying solution for some of his later harpsichord music, because the pianoforte with its rich spectrum of partials resembles a harpsichord more than a modern grand does.

Only for those who consider Bach on the piano a problem. I don't.

[Que]

My thoughts exactly. I usually have no problems listening to HIP performances of orchestral or chamber music, or (some) fortepianos. It's the sound of the harpsichord that give me headache.

Now we have arrived at the core of the issue.... 

The density of harpsichord music can be off puting at first.
But the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines.
The rewards are great....

On the piano the instrument and the performer does the job for you, by adding different dynamics to the various musical lines.
Which basically destroys (a distinctive part of) the original effect

Q

[Florestan]

The density of harpsichord music can be off puting at first.
But the ear, or rather the mind, can be trained to analyse and separate the different voices and musical lines.
The rewards or great....

Possibly, even probably. Nay, certainly. But I repeat: my approach to music is far from an intellectual / intellectualist one. I fully subscribe to Debussy's dictum that "There are no rules. Pleasure is the law". If I don't enjoy what I hear no amount of historical research or theoretical analysis will convince me that I should actually enjoy it or that I should be spending my time trying my best to enjoy it, especially when there is already a way by which I can enjoy it.

My whole point is simple: HIP is perfectly all right as one of the many legitimate approaches to the music of the past and emphatically not all right when presented as the only legitimate one.

[Karl Henning]

As I've said before, I enjoy many HIP/PI performances/recordings, but not because they are historically "correct".  I enjoy them because I like the way the instruments sound.

Yes.

Performers are of equal stature, imo, to the composer.  It is a necessary partnership to realize the music.

Yes, again.

[Karl Henning]

When I say something, what I mean is independent of my intentions.

Oh.

[prémont]

That is obviously true but there is a reason (actually, many reasons) for why the harpsichord has been abandoned as a viable instrument from the very early 1800s until the 1930s and also for why the Romantic piano aesthetics has been so hugely popular for the last two centuries. Trying to bring the harpsichord back to the forefront again is like trying to revert the time arrow (pace Gurn)

I rather think it is the Romantic aesthetics in the widest sense which have made the grand piano so popular, but as you know: Fashions change, and in some future the situation may be the opposite.