The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[prémont]

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.

I think you read more between the lines, than the poster intended.

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

This is also wrong. I am essentially guided by my taste. And I have no taste for sentimentality.

[Marc]

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.

Ironic, eh?

The 2nd remark... dunno. On the Martini A.D. 1450 up to 1740 almost everything sounds awesome. Same with the Müller in Leeuwarden.
The Der Aa Kerk organ is a funny mixture, so Franck and Reger sound 'almost naturally' well.

But... I also have to admit (without irony) that I prefer the baroque organ sound to the romantic in any 'case'. It speaks to my inner soul far & far more. There. I said it.

[prémont]

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

Because his expressive means were not particularly piano compatible.

[Florestan]

It was period instruments and period playing styles.

"Period instruments" and "period playing styles" are modern concepts --- and so is Baroque, for that matter --- of which Bach or Buxtehude or Scarlatti had absolutely no idea whatsoever. Just like Haydn or Mozart had absolutely no idea whatsoever that they were the pillars of the Classical Viennese School.

Of course they didn't name it so by then, but to day we know this.

Talk about trying to impose our views on the past...

[prémont]

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

Sorry, I am so slow cerebrated, that I do not always quite understand you point.

[prémont]

Ironic, eh?

What can I say? Sarcastic?

[prémont]

"Period instruments" and "period playing styles" are modern concepts --- and so is Baroque, for that matter --- of which Bach or Buxtehude or Scarlatti had absolutely no idea whatsoever. Just like Haydn or Mozart had absolutely no idea whatsoever that they were the pillars of the Classical Viennese School.

Talk about trying to impose our views on the past...

No, it is just the consequence of a historical view upon the past.

[Florestan]

I think you read more between the lines, than the poster intended.

Possibly. This is yet another difference between me and Lutherans / Calvinists: for me it's the spirit, not the letter, that counts. 

[Florestan]

Sorry, I am so slow cerebrated, that I do not always quite understand you point.

Oh, please --- you begin to sound like Harry. 

[Mandryka]

Possibly. This is yet another difference between me and Lutherans / Calvinists: for me it's the spirit, not the letter, that counts. 

You're just like Rosalyn Tureck, who thought she had access to Bach's spirit.

[Marc]

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?

I read about the fights in newspapers sometimes, but it happened mostly before my own organ 'revival'. So I don't know all the details.

Just now and then I ask some people of the (Groningen) organ world, what it was exactly about... but it almost seems as if everyone feels unsure or ashamed to talk about it anymore.

Roughly said: group 1 said that it originally was a baroque Schnitger organ, and therefore it should be restored and reconstructed as a Schnitger organ again (a bit like the Martini organ). So get rid of all those 'awful' Timpe/Van Oeckelen/Doornbos stuff, who did more bad than good.
Group 2 said: please no, this instrument is unique as it is now. It's gained its international fame with this mix of styles. People and organ lovers adore it as it is. We have to pay respect to all styles and periods.

Group 2 did 'win'. Nowadays, a historical restoration has to pay respect to the entire history of the instrument. So, a restoration/reconstruction like Ahrend/Edskes did with the Martini (getting rid of (almost) all 19th and 20th century material) is now impossible in the Netherlands. Unless they change the regulations again of course. But I doubt this will happen any time soon.

The difference between these two particular instruments, I have to add, was that the Der Aa Kerk organ was still a truly magnificent organ in 1997, whilst the Martini organ in 1977 was a complete and utter mess. Some even considered to demolish the entire thing and build a new one.

Personally, looking back and experiencing both organs from time to time in live concerts, I am very very happy with how both restorations were done.

[Florestan]

No, it is just the consequence of a historical view upon the past.

Please show me one single 18th century treatise on composing or performing which contains the notions of "period instruments", "period playing styles", "Baroque" or "Viennese Classicism". These are simply modern notions superimposed upon the past.

[Florestan]

You're just like Rosalyn Tureck, who thought she had access to Bach's spirit.

You've lost me here. Please elaborate.

[prémont]

Oh, please --- you begin to sound like Harry. 

But I am more relaxed and do not take offence.

[Florestan]

But I am more relaxed and do not take offence.

Absolutely, that's why I greatly enjoy our debate. 

[Marc]

Please show me one single 18th century treatise on composing or performing which contains the notions of "period instruments", "period playing styles", "Baroque" or "Viennese Classicism". These are simply modern notions superimposed upon the past.

This is kicking in an open door.
Like Premont said, it's an historical view upon the past.
And yes, there are historical (excusez le mot) tracts who are very helpful to understand how various instruments were played, or can to be played in the most satisfying way. The most famous ones nowadays are written by CPE Bach and L Mozart. But there are plenty more. Ewald Kooiman & Gerhard Weinberger wrote an interesting book f.i. on how to play the Bach organ works, based upon contemporary theories & tracts. Unfortunately (for many), it was only published in German.

[prémont]

So, a restoration/reconstruction like Ahrend/Edskes did with the Martini (getting rid of (almost) all 19th and 20th century material) is now impossible in the Netherlands. Unless they change the regulations again of course. But I doubt this will happen any time soon.

I am very surprised to read this. I always considered the Netherlands a guarantee for scientifically reponsible reconstructions.

[Florestan]

there are historical (excusez le mot) tracts who are very helpful to understand how various instruments were played, or ought to be played. The most famous ones nowadays are written by CPE Bach and L Mozart.

Btw, in his violin treatise Leopold Mozart complains about the abuse of vibrato prevalent in his time --- a clear indication that vibrato was widely used back then. Yet the HIP people miss no opportunity to preach that using vibrato for 18th century music is wrong because that's not how they did it back then. 

And then there is this violin treaty by Geminiani who actually prescribes the use of vibrato. 

[prémont]

Please show me one single 18th century treatise on composing or performing which contains the notions of "period instruments", "period playing styles", "Baroque" or "Viennese Classicism". These are simply modern notions superimposed upon the past.

I do not know any. But as I wrote: These concepts are a result of our (modern) historical thinking. Did they in the Stone Age know the concept Stone Age`?

[Que]

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".

I have nothing against other choices outside the original conceptual context. I was just pointing out the rewarding  experience of music performed  on the harpsichord.

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

I wouldn't  (and didn't) say that, it is just the way I like it. Though I also enjoy, now and then, some performances on the piano....

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.

I didn't say that. Pointing out the special charcteristics and merits of music played on the harpsichord, doesn't equal the dismissal of any other options. You shouldn't do anything but whatever gives you musical enjoyment. That doesn't mean I can't encourage you to explore the merits of the harpsichord.

Q