The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

He may not have . . . or, he may have.

Very good. 

[Karl Henning]

Very good. 

. . . because one of the (many) things I love about Bach (and in the 20^th c. we see it a good deal in the Shostakovich symphonies, e.g.) is his giving exactly the same material to different instruments.  Bach was a colorist, of course.

[prémont]

Now, what is the perfectly agreed upon meaning of this today?

The notes are probably not to be interpreted in the same way as we would do, if the music was composed to day. Our musicologists try to encode this. There are f.i. some shorthand involved in Bach's notation. This is why Mandryka's Shakespeare example is good. The signs in the score are like words, which have changed their meaning during the last 250 years or so.

[prémont]

. . . because one of the (many) things I love about Bach (and in the 20^th c. we see it a good deal in the Shostakovich symphonies, e.g.) is his giving exactly the same material to different instruments.  Bach was a colorist, of course.

Good point.

[Mandryka]

As for your analogy with Shakespeare, it doesn't work for the very simple reason that music is not a spoken language. "Bootless" is a word; it had a different meaning in 1600 than it has now, but in both cases it has one that can be ascertained and upon which people then, or people today, were / are in perfect agreement. Now, what is the perfectly agreed upon meaning of this today?

By coincidence Premont recommended a book by Colin Booth which deals with precisely this question, and it arrived in the post this morning. You'll be able to find excerpts from it on Colin Booth's website. I just opened the package and looked at the first chapter and it's clear that in Bach's day people had a different attitude to note length, so some notes would be held down longer than a literal reading of the score indicates, to create a chordal texture. Booth argues that this practice was so ubiquitous that composers just assumed that everyone would do it. Anyway, this isn't the place for the details, the point is that the conventions underlying the meaning of the score have changed just as the conventions underlying the meaning of "bootless" have changed.

You'll know more about this than me, I'm sure, but I think you get similar problems in Mozart. Bilson did something called "Knowing the Score"

http://malcolmbilson.com/kts.php

[prémont]

By coincidence Premont recommended a book by Colin Booth which deals with precisely this question...

That was certainly not a coincidence. 

[Florestan]

Good point.

But, but --- if Bach was a colorist then this is all the more reason to believe he would have relished the colors of the piano or that at least he would not have mind his music being played on one. 

[Karl Henning]

But, but --- if Bach was a colorist then this is all the more reason to believe he would have relished the colors of the piano or that at least he would not have mind his music being played on one. 

Not all colorists work color the same, of course.

Matisse was a colorist.  Bach was a colorist, too.  So what Bach would have done is . . . .

[Florestan]

the point is that the conventions underlying the meaning of the score have changed just as the conventions underlying the meaning of "bootless" have changed.

No doubt, but whereas performing Shakespeare with today's conventions would result in an absurdity --- a barefoot Brutus --- which the audience would laugh off the stage even without being aware of the original convention, performing Bach with today's conventions would result in... in what, exactly?

The Shakespeare analogy is doubly faulty, now that I think of it, in that it implies not only a highly debatable analogy between music-making and speaking, but also a plainly implausible one between performing music and performing a play, ie between hearing non-verbal sounds and seeing actions described by words.

[Florestan]

Not all colorists work color the same, of course.

Matisse was a colorist.  Bach was a colorist, too.  So what Bach would have done is . . . .

Please define color in music.

[San Antone]

And if Bach would have have abandoned the harpsichord and had written for the piano, he wouldn't have written the same music.

Q

You cannot know that. 

He might have, or he might not have.  As a fertile musical mind, he might have abandoned the harpsichord for the piano.  As a human being of some habits, some of the habits entrenched, he might never have abandoned the harpsichord.

Yours is a reasonable speculation, but only speculation.  (By which, I do not mean to single you out by any means.)

The entire HIP/PI phenomenon is based on speculation. 

But for me the bottomline is that I think Bach's music is perfectly suited to the piano, despite claims to the contrary by the HIP/PI camp.  Since Shakespeare has come up already, here's another quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[prémont]

But, but --- if Bach was a colorist then this is all the more reason to believe he would have relished the colors of the piano or that at least he would not have mind his music being played on one. 

Yes, I think, this is what Karl implied in his post, and I agree as to most instruments.
But on my own part I am not sure about the piano, - of course not the fortepiano, but the modern grand, which I consider a rather colorless instrument, which pianists have to play with all their mobilizable imagination, in order to confer it a hint of color. One of my objections to playing Baroque music on the modern grand is precisely its lack of color (partials).

[Karl Henning]

The entire HIP/PI phenomenon is based on speculation.

Aye;  I may have posted to just that effect, erewhile.

But for me the bottomline is that I think Bach's music is perfectly suited to the piano, despite claims to the contrary by the HIP/PI camp.  Since Shakespeare has come up already, here's another quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

The greatness of both Bach and Shakespeare resides partly in how the work remains great, throughout a wide range of variable interpretation.  I do not think I need to qualify that statement as mere opinion   0:)

[prémont]

Please define color in music.

The color of a musical instrument is defined by the combination of the upper partials of the instrument.

[Madiel]

The greatness of both Bach and Shakespeare resides partly in how it remains great, throughout a wide ranger of variable interpretation.  I do not think I need to qualify that statement as mere opinion   0:)

Indeed, much of this is haggling over details that are unable to hide the powerful structure underneath.

[prémont]

No doubt, but whereas performing Shakespeare with today's conventions would result in an absurdity --- a barefoot Brutus --- which the audience would laugh off the stage even without being aware of the original convention, performing Bach with today's conventions would result in... in what, exactly?

Well, for informed listeners it might also result in a laugh.

[zamyrabyrd]

No doubt, but whereas performing Shakespeare with today's conventions would result in an absurdity...

The Shakespeare analogy is doubly faulty, now that I think of it, in that it implies not only a highly debatable analogy between music-making and speaking, but also a plainly implausible one between performing music and performing a play, ie between hearing non-verbal sounds and seeing actions described by words.

HIP Shakespeare would try to incorporate Elizabethan pronunciation which has been tried to an extent. This can solve some of the issues in non-rhyming words in Modern English, which rhymed back then. If an audience already knows the text from having read or studied it, then they should be able to follow the play even with slightly altered pronunciation.

The problem is with in-jokes or references that still haven't been solved yet. These go over the heads of modern audiences as probably some of the musical connotations particularly in Baroque Affekt that have been discontinued or maybe just went underground.

[Florestan]

HIP Shakespeare would try to incorporate Elizabethan pronunciation which has been tried to an extent. This can solve some of the issues in non-rhyming words in Modern English, which rhymed back then. If an audience already knows the text from having read or studied it, then they should be able to follow the play even with slightly altered pronunciation.

The problem is with in-jokes or references that still haven't been solved yet. These go over the heads of modern audiences as probably some of the musical connotations particularly in Baroque Affekt that have been discontinued or maybe just went underground.

HIP Shakespeare would also involve boys in women roles and the replacing of scenography by additional non-acting people carrying signs reading, for instance, "This is a tree."

[Florestan]

You cannot know that. 

The entire HIP/PI phenomenon is based on speculation. 

But for me the bottomline is that I think Bach's music is perfectly suited to the piano, despite claims to the contrary by the HIP/PI camp.  Since Shakespeare has come up already, here's another quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Now, really, have we been separated at birth, I wonder? 

[zamyrabyrd]

The color of a musical instrument is defined by the combination of the upper partials of the instrument.

Indeed, the reason I don't think Bach would have composed the same music for the modern piano. He was very sensitive to partials and tuning, the latter being the pretext for the Well Tempered Clavier. Relative tuning was still not our half tone tuning. The key themselves had different colors because of having or not having perfect fifiths. I could try and look up an excellent article on the tuning of Bach's time, haven't read it for a while, so sort of forget where it is.