The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

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.

My thoughts exactly.

[Marc]

Excellent point.

Now that I think of it, there is an irrefutable case against HIP dogmatism regarding instruments: castratti. Until they are brought back I will refuse to listen to any opera originally featuring one.

In the Bach year 2000, there was a double interview with Ton Koopman and Dutch author (& Bach lover) Maarten 't Hart, a.o. in the magazine Luister.
't Hart liked Koopman's recordings of the cantatas very much, but he was against the rigidity of some/many HIP-sters. He made kind of the same remark about castrates. Koopman laughed and said something like: "I know some obscure places in Naples where you can still listen to one or two, if you pay the right amount of money."

The horror.
(I guess he was joking though. At least I hope so.)

[Florestan]

In the Bach year 2000, there was a double interview with Ton Koopman and Dutch author (& Bach lover) Maarten 't Hart, a.o. in the magazine Luister.
't Hart liked Koopman's recordings of the cantatas very much, but he was against the rigidity of some/many HIP-sters. He made kind of the same remark about castrates. Koopman laughed and said something like: "I know some obscure places in Naples where you can still listen to one or two, if you pay the right amount of money."

The horror.
(I guess he was joking though. At least I hope so.)

He was joking because this is exactly the kind of joke someone raised in a Calvinist surrounding and taught by a Calvinist would make on Italians. 

[prémont]

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[/u]  is utterly incomprehensible to me. 

I never expressed anything like this.

Crux of the matter, as Que would have said.

Certainly. Like you I am guided by my taste. I have serious reasons to think that you do not enjoy all composers.

[prémont]

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.

She made -I do not know why - a few recordings on a revival harpsichord (GV and Chromatic fantasy IIRC - it is fortunately many years ago), some of the worst harpsichord recordings I have heard.

[Florestan]

I never expressed anything like this.

So much for a Lutheran's sense of irony...   

I have serious reasons to think that you do not enjoy all composers.

And you're right. But the strange thing is, of those I don't enjoy some are more enjoyable than the others. 

[Florestan]

She made -I do not know why - a few recordings on a revival harpsichord (GV and Chromatic fantasy IIRC - it is fortunately many years ago), some of the worst harpsichord recordings I have heard.

Gotcha! You'd have hated Bach's own playing! 

[prémont]

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.

In my ironic approach it works well. BTW when did you last hear an accordion player or a Hammond organist play Louis Couperin or Böhm?? 

And I think that Cesar Franck on a Baroque organ may be even worse than Bach on a romantic organ.

[prémont]

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. 

Nobody in this forum has said anything like that. Like you we all are governed by our taste.

[prémont]

And you're right. But the strange thing is, of those I don't enjoy some are more enjoyable than the others. 

We also agree in this. Tchaikovsky does very little for me, but sometimes I enjoy Brahms - when I am in the suitable mood.

[prémont]

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.

Great and thoughtful post, Marc. Thanks.

[mc ukrneal]

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.)

I really connect with this. As a saxophone player, I spent much of my life playing jazz and improv. In the jazz world at the time, there was a lot more east coast vs west coast jazz discussion, but you are right that that world has a lot of flexibility, in part due to the expectations of how to play the music. I was actually quite blown away the first time I heard that classical musicians used to do this too (similar, anyway).

I don't understand why we try to tell others that their approach is 'inauthentic' or somehow not true to the composer being discussed. I get great joy in listening to the Paris Saxophone Quartet play Bach. It's beautiful. It's thought provoking. It's as transparent as any other instrumentation I've heard. It's clearly played with understanding and deep appreciation of Bach. It's pure joy. It's no less insightful than any other Bach I have heard. For me, I think it boils down to this: the spirit of the performance always outweighs the technical aspects of the performance. Maybe that's the jazz musician in me....

[Florestan]

Nobody in this forum has said anything like that.

Que just did. Harry did it earlier and earned your unqualified approval --- granted, you retracted afterwards. Mandryka implies it in basically every post of his.

Like you we all are governed by our taste.

Maybe --- but unlike me you wrap your taste in an ideological ironclad.

[prémont]

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.

Was this a matter of different taste of the people who were entrusted to restore the organ, or was it caused by inadequate information about the earlier Aa organ?

[prémont]

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.

But note: It was still period instruments.

[Florestan]

But note: It was still period instruments.

No, it was instruments, period. (pun). 

Those guys had no idea about the "period instruments" concept. They performed on whatever instruments were available to them and they were profficient on --- exactly like Angela Hewitt does.

[prémont]

Gotcha! You'd have hated Bach's own playing! 

Why should her very uninformed playing resemble Bach's playing.

Bach's own playing might have teached me a lot, and probably dwarfed Tureck's playing completely.

[San Antone]

Considering that as soon as they could composers abandoned the harpsichord for the piano, and for two centuries and counting no one writes for the harpsichord anymore.  Oh sure, there are a few 20th century composers writing for it here and there, it has become such a novelty they chose to bring it out of mothballs.

But aside from those outliers composers from Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Schoenberg, up to Michael Finnissy, and beyond, have proven consistently that they prefer the piano.

Why cannot we not presume that had he be able to Bach too would have abandoned the harpsichord?

[prémont]

No, it was instruments, period. (pun). 

Those guys had no idea about the "period instruments" concept. They performed on whatever instruments were available to them and they were profficient on --- exactly like Angela Hewitt does.

It was period instruments and period playing styles. Of course they didn't name it so by then, but to day we know this.

[Florestan]

Why should her very uninformed playing resemble Bach's playing.

It's for the second time you miss an irony...

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.

She made -I do not know why - a few recordings on a revival harpsichord (GV and Chromatic fantasy IIRC - it is fortunately many years ago), some of the worst harpsichord recordings I have heard.

Gotcha! You'd have hated Bach's own playing!