The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Marc]

[...]
Just as a matter of contingent fact, I find the HIP performances generally nicer than the ones which aren't. That's probably because the composers I'm interested in knew what they wanted and had some very good ideas about what the music should sound like.

I know you're interested in f.i. Bach.

Why did Bach change the lute into a viola da gamba for "Kom, süßes Kreuz, so will ich sagen" in the Matthäus-Passion?
Bach added and deleted all kinds of instruments for his passions (at least 2 versions for BWV 244, and 4 or 5 for BWV 245), he changed many scores and instrumentations of cantatas performed in both Weimar and Leipzig, et cetera and et al. There's also more than 1 version for the Brandenburg Concertos and (at least one) Orchestersuite. He rewrote a cello suite for lute, he arranged a lute suite for harpsichord/clavichord, he arranged other composer's works with different instrumentation and different lyrics. The list could be endless. The entire baroque period is filled with so-called parodies btw.

Why would Bach (and others) do that?

Probably because he had other/more/less instruments to his behalf, I'd say.
And also maybe because he definitely wanted another sound, like f.i. the large basso continuo for the final version of BWV 245. And maybe because he wanted to give other musician(s) a chance to play some of his music (like BWV 995)?

Which instrumentation is the most 'authentic'? In which version did he have the best ideas about what the music should sound like?

It's always dangerous to claim something like "Bach would have liked this or that more or less, or he would (not) understand this or that...", because no one of us knew the man. I especially see those lines used by non-HIPsters who tend to say "if Bach would have known the piano Grand, he would have preferred it." Well, he didn't know it, so it's a useless remark IMHO. But I do dare to say this: I think that Bach would not understand one bit about an everlasting thread like this. He was a great composer and a musician, not a fanatic instrument-fetishist.

[prémont]

Not at all. There's no other way of enjoying their music because the HIP intellectual totalitarianism has been quite succesful in convincing performers and audiences alike that... well, that here's no other way of enjoying their music, thus intimidating pianists away from engaging with this music. But I tell you that whenever a pianist is bold enough to tackle this repertoire with an imaginative mind and a serious comittment, such as Francesco Tristano did with Frescobaldi or Pavel Kolesnikov with Louis Couperin, the results have been most enjoyable to me. I do wish more pianists broke this absurd and self-proclaimed monopoly that the HIP gang imposed on this repertoire.

Not to mention all the accordeon players and el organists, who have been intimidated so much, that they never have dared to play this repertoire.

[Florestan]

Now you know, that I am a northerner who grew up in Lutheran surroundings, so I demand seriousness and profundity in the music,

I know and imho this an explain a lot of differences in our approaches to music. 

and I do not find this in Tchaikovsky's music, which I in short shall characterize as being technically well-crafted, melodious and emotional bordering the sentimental.

Sentiments can be serious and profound.

So I prefer an interpretation which downplays the sentimentality. and the Borodin's deliver more of this than the Elman's. Other than that I do not like Elman's sliding, even if I know this was commonly done not many years ago. So my situation is similar to yours, but my object is the opposite.

Not quite. You favor HIP for music pre-1800 but non-HIP for music post-1850. You are not consistent. I don't favor anything, I just enjoy whatever suits my taste. I am consistent.   

[Florestan]

Work on your routine.  Then get back to me, mmkay?

I'll never get back to you, it's not worth the trouble.

[Mahlerian]

I'll never get back to you, it's not worth the trouble.

Oh, but you will; you just can't resist making a jab at me.  You've tried so hard to quit me, but it just ain't workin', honey.

[Florestan]

Why did you mention van Delft -- because of the clavichord partitas?

Because you mentioned him in the negative.

[Florestan]

Rosalyn Tureck said she had a direct line to Bach and he was guiding her (I think in dreams, but maybe voices, I can't remember) about how to play his music. So if you like Tureck you'd have liked Bach.

If she did say that then she was a weirdo.

[Florestan]

Not to mention all the accordeon players and el organists, who have been intimidated so much, that they never have dared to play this repertoire.

That's a facetious remark, quite strange coming from a serious Lutheran. 

[Marc]

Not to mention all the accordeon players and el organists, who have been intimidated so much, that they never have dared to play this repertoire.

This comparison doesn't work very well entirely IMO.
In my experience: accordionists, jazz musicians, prog rock bands, hammond organists and whatever have never been intimidated by the (rigid or less rigid) opinions of their classical brothers and sisters. It's a different world. They don't care. (Bless them.)
But yes, during the last decade of organ concert visiting I've heard f.i. far less Bach on romantic organs than romantic works on baroque organs.

Bernard Haitink stopped with his career of chief conductor of a symphony orchestra because he was sick of almost not being allowed to conduct Mozart and contemporaries any more. He admired Harnoncourt and invited him to conduct the Concertgebouw Orkest, but after that he constantly heard from his own musicians "no that's wrong, Harnoncourt says..." when he rehearsed Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. So he thought: "bugger off, I'm gonna do opera in London Town."

But maybe the situation in NL was/is more rigid than elsewhere, with all those calvinists around here. Around 2000-2005, I was debating in a few Dutch forums, where people who were not-so-HIP, when they admitted they liked Bach on piano & a Matthäus in a 'grand' performance and claimed that they had the freedom to do so, received tons of torrents of verbal abuse by Conservatorium HIP musicologists. "You should be forbidden to listen to Bach anymore. It's not Bach you're listening to. You are a bl**dy shame!" Et cetera & et al.
I kid ye not.

[Florestan]

Bernard Haitink stopped with his career of chief conductor of a symphony orchestra because he was sick of almost not being allowed to conduct Mozart and contemporaries any more. He admired Harnoncourt and invited him to conduct the Concertgebouw Orkest, but after that he constantly heard from his own musicians "no that's wrong, Harnoncourt says..." when he rehearsed Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. So he thought: "bugger off, I'm gonna do opera in London Town."

But maybe the situation in NL was/is more rigid than elsewhere, with all those calvinists around here. Around 2000-2005, I was debating in a few Dutch forums, where people who were not-so-HIP, when they admitted they liked Bach on piano & a Matthäus in a 'grand' performance and claimed that they had the freedom to do so, received tons of torrents of verbal abuse by Conservatorium HIP musicologists. "You should be forbidden to listen to Bach anymore. It's not Bach you're listening to. You are a bl**dy shame!" Et cetera & et al.
I kid ye not.

Intellectual totalitarianism. Not that it's a specialty of the HIP camp. Boulez, anyone?

In my experience: accordionists, jazz musicians, prog rock bands, hammond organists and whatever have never been intimidated by the (rigid or less rigid) opinions of their classical brothers and sisters. It's a different world. They don't care. (Bless them.)

A big + 1 to this.

[prémont]

Sentiments can be serious and profound.

Yes, sentiments can be, but sentimentality can not.

Not quite. You favor HIP for music pre-1800 but non-HIP for music post-1850. You are not consistent. I don't favor anything, I just enjoy whatever suits my taste. I am consistent.   

The reason why I in this case prefer non-HIP for Tchaikovsky is, that it suits my taste far better than the presumed HIP does. Our arguments and motivations are identical. There is no real difference between favoring and enjoying. I favor what suits my taste because I enjoy it, which means that I do not favor, what I do not enjoy. Ideally I would wish, that I preferred HIP for all music, also Tchaikovsky, but not all HIP suits my taste, particularly if the composer as such does not suit my taste.

[Que]

See? That's exactly the kind of "totalitarianism" I was referring to: if you don't listen to it my way, then you don't listen to it the right way. 

Sorry but I disagree. There is no right way to listen to any given piece of music, or better said there are as many right ways as there are listeners.

Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism? 

I mean, you don't have to like that way, but it is what it is... Wagner didn't write for a barrel organ, François Couperin didn't write for the piano.

What's next? "alternative facts" in music? 

Q

[prémont]

That's a facetious remark, quite strange coming from a serious Lutheran. 

Lutherans also have a sense of irony.

And exaggerations - even sometimes absurd - facilitates understanding.

[Marc]

Intellectual totalitarianism. Not that it's a specialty of the HIP camp. [...]

No, alas it isn't. In general, I can get so bl**dy tired sometimes of all those "we are right and you are wrong" camps.
I'm only a very small part of the organ world (at the sidelines) right now, but I know for a fact that the restoration of the Der Aa Kerk organ took 14 years instead of 4, just because of the furious and almost endless fights between 2 camps who couldn't agree in which way the organ should be restored. Finally the government changed law & regulation and the Reil company could begin with its restoration work. 10 years of silence of this magnificent instrument just because of the rigid inflexibility of 2 opposing groups of 'organ lovers'. BAH.

[Marc]

Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism? 

I mean, you don't have to like that way, but it is what it is... Wagner didn't write for a barrel organ, François Couperin didn't write for the piano.

What's next? "alternative facts" in music? 

Q

But if Wagner would have known the barrel organ, he most certainly would have preferred it.

[Florestan]

Yes, sentiments can be, but sentimentality can not.

Now you know, I'm a southerner who grew up in an Orthodox surrounding. The notion that everything which is not stern, grim and set in strict counterpoint is sentimental  is utterly incomprehensible to me. 

Ideally I would wish, that I preferred HIP for all music, also Tchaikovsky, but not all HIP suits my taste, particularly if the composer as such does not suit my taste.

Crux of the matter, as Que would have said. 

[Florestan]

Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism? 

Not at all. Totalitarianism is when someone says that music composed for the harpsichord should only be played on the harpsichord.

I refer you to Gurn's post in which he states the fact that it was common practice back then to play on the oboe music written for the violin and viceversa. To which I can add that it was common practice back then for the composers to publish their scores in ad libitum instrumentation, eg Locatelli's Trio Sonatas for two violins or two flutes.

[Marc]

Not at all. Totalitarianism is when someone says that music composed for the harpsichord should only be played on the harpsichord.

I refer you to Gurn's post in which he states the fact that it was common practice back then to play on the oboe music written for the violin and viceversa. To which I can add that it was common practice back then for the composers to publish their scores in ad libitum instrumentation, eg Locatelli's Trio Sonatas for two violins or two flutes.

Yes, and the first versions of the beautiful soprano arias of Bach's SJP were written for violin (no.1) and oboe (no. 2) instead of flute(s). You should ask traverse flutists how 'natural' the flute parts of those arias are composed (=arranged). (NOT.)
So, here's a new topic within this everlasting topic: these arias should be played in its original settings with violin & oboe, without any flutes. Those parts aren't meant for flutes. They should be forbidden. Period.

[Florestan]

Yes, and the first versions of the beautiful soprano arias of Bach's SJP were written for violin(s) instead of flute(s). You should ask traverse flutists how 'natural' the flute parts of those arias are composed (=arranged). (NOT.)
So, here's a new topic within this everlasting topic: these arias should be played in its original settings with violins, without any flutes. Those parts aren't meant for flutes. They should be forbidden. Period.

Excellent point.

Now that I think of it, I will not listen to any opera originally featuring at least one castrato voice.

[San Antone]

Are you saying that stating the historical fact that harpsichord music was composed for the harpsichord amounts to totalitarianism? 

It may be a historical fact but the world did not stop turning when those works were composed.  250 years down the road we have a magnificent instrument called the piano. And you know what?  Bach's works can be played on it!  We now have another choice besides the harpsichord.  And not only do we have another choice but the piano can do things with the music the harpsichord cannot, things which bring out new aspects in Bach's music.  Many people love it - and many actually prefer Bach on the piano instead of a harpsichord; pianists consider Bach "their guy".

So, yeah, it is a little like totalitarianism to insist that those works should only be played on a harpsichord.