The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Ken B]

The only way to know how a triplet sign was played in Bach's time is to get in a time machine and hear those people playing. Since this is well-nigh impossible all that we are left are conjectures, hypotheses and speculations.

But imho opinion the crux of the matter lies besides technicalities and is this: if the value of any given piece of music is strictly dependent on a certain historical context, certain techniques and certain instruments then that universality of which Karl spoke in relationship with Bach or Shakespeare is completely lost; the work becomes literally a relic of the past, an object not of music and performance but of archaeology and excavation.

Is the only way we can know how the Romans pronounced V to get in a time machine?

[Florestan]

Is the only way we can know how the Romans pronounced V to get in a time machine?

Oh, no, please, not again music and language! And especially not music and Latin!

[prémont]

First: music is not a language. Any analogy between words / speech, whose meanings can be unanimously agreed upon by (tens or hundreds of) millions of people, and musical bars / works, whose meaning can, and will, be debated until kingdom come, is in my opinion false.

See Mandryka's answer to this.

Second: you said earlier that you prefer to close your eyes when listening to music because the bodily movements of the performers might distract you from concentrating upon music. A play performed on stage is on the contrary specifically dependent upon the bodily movements of the performers which, far from detracting the attention, actually imply it. I am confident you don't close your eyes when they perform Romeo and Juliet.

I do not find a litteral comparison betwween music and stage play to be valid. Musicians are not actors. Mandryka's comparison is meant to be understood in a more figurative way, and is in this sense very apt.

[prémont]

Or look at a 13th century black note manuscript...

Well, the risk of confusion is more obvious with the Bach manuscript, because it looks like something we know, whereas a 13th century manuscript only will induce a few associations in a 21th century viewer.

[prémont]

The only way to know how a triplet sign was played in Bach's time is to get in a time machine and hear those people playing. Since this is well-nigh impossible all that we are left are conjectures, hypotheses and speculations.

This is not true. Baroque musical authors have written quite a lot about these things, and comparing more manuscripts may tell a lot.

[prémont]

I agree.
I think the question, though, is whether or not this is an important issue.  Because we know that the interpretation of these things was different, is there any obligation on us as performers/listeners to adjust the way we think of the music?  Florestan says no.  I remain agnostic about the matter, but I'm interested in seeing what you have to say.

If we don't use our musicological knowledge the music we make will become even more distorted.

[Mahlerian]

If we don't use our musicological knowledge the music we make will become even more distorted.

True, but I suppose the question is if there is inherent value in trying to remove the layers caked onto the original, or whether the performing tradition carries its own validity, regardless of historical context.

Personally, I can enjoy both HIP interpretations and non-HIP ones, and although I find that massive choirs/orchestras performing Handel or Bach sound strange, I'm not especially bothered by hearing the grand piano instead of the harpsichord or clavichord.

[Mandryka]

But imho opinion the crux of the matter lies besides technicalities and is this: if the value of any given piece of music is strictly dependent on a certain historical context, certain techniques and certain instruments then that universality of which Karl spoke in relationship with Bach or Shakespeare is completely lost;

I'm sorry if this is a bore, but would you or Karl or someone else just explain this universality in relation to Bach. I expect it's buried in this thread somewhere but I can't see it.

[Mandryka]

True, but I suppose the question is if there is inherent value in trying to remove the layers caked onto the original, or whether the performing tradition carries its own validity, regardless of historical context.

Personally, I can enjoy both HIP interpretations and non-HIP ones, and although I find that massive choirs/orchestras performing Handel or Bach sound strange, I'm not especially bothered by hearing the grand piano instead of the harpsichord or clavichord.

I think it would be hard  to argue that the performing tradition carries no validity. I mean lots of people enjoy and pay for the distortions, the travesties, the lies etc. And people make money out of it by concerts etc.

Isn't interesting how close we always are to the truth related concepts - validity, distortion . .  . I'm sure that it's a promising research area.

[zamyrabyrd]

Actually we don't know what Bach would have minded, all we can do is to make a qualified guess. But what Bach would have minded is not that important, since he probably can't hear the pianists of to day. But I can, and I am not - for many reasons, which I have described - keen on listening to most of the pianists who play Bach today. But again I stress, that I have more against the pianists than the instrument.

What do you think of Glenn Gould?

[zamyrabyrd]

In the last years I have seen a few examples of tuning a piano in unequal temperature, but the effect will never become the same as on a harpsichord because of the modern grand's weak partials.

Well, electronic keyboards can be tuned easily in different temperaments (not temperature, for sure a typo). This is done with Oriental scales for instance.

[zamyrabyrd]

The only way to know how a triplet sign was played in Bach's time is to get in a time machine and hear those people playing. Since this is well-nigh impossible all that we are left are conjectures, hypotheses and speculations.

Well, not entirely. Interpreting of Bach at the Keyboard by Paul Badura-Skoda mentions organ barrels that recorded like a hurdy gurdy, music in the mid 18th century with some Handel. Unfortunately many got lost in a fire. But he did hear some of them. He found that tempi were faster than what we are used to but that may be a function of having to cram as many notes as possible in a small space like 78 records had to.

He mentioned something also quite extraordinary in the Baroque, the sometime lengthening of the first of a duplet making it into a triplet with the first note lengthened to twice its value. Astonishingly, there is a recording of Rachmaninoff playing his own 3rd Piano Concerto, employing the same craft , very beautiful and special. 

[Wakefield]

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:)

Precisely.

An irrelevant thought: Every time when I read this kind of comments (quite accepted, indeed), some words by Ernesto Sabato said during a conversation with Borges come to my mind.

"I remember that a long time ago, I saw a staging of Macbeth. The translation was as bad as the actors and the badly painted stage. But I went out to the street undone by tragic passion. Shakespeare had managed to beat his translator."

It's good to recall, I think, that this is referred to Shakespeare's own greatness, not to the performance itself.

[Mandryka]

The greatness of . . . Bach . .  resides partly in how the work remains great, throughout a wide range of variable interpretation.

Is this just saying that you think that the music can be fun to hear whether it's played  slow or fast, stiff or fluid, see-through or blended, harpsichord or sax . . . Or is there more being said?

[Florestan]

See Mandrykas answer to this.

I do not find a litteral comparison betwween music and stage play to be valid. Musicians are not actors. Mandryka's comparison is meant to be understood in a more figurative way, and is in this sense very apt.

It is very apt only because you happened to agree with his views even before he made that specific comparison.

Much as I've been enjoying this exchange, I'm beginning to feel exhaustion. Both camps have made their points and it is clearly apparent that neither is going to change position as a result of this debate, which actually amounts to each party gently and kindly (most of the time) refuting the arguments of the other party. (Karl suggested three minimal points of agreement to which I am the only one to have formally expressed approval.) This can be fun for a while but eventually it gets tiresome, at least for me. Therefore I will state my position once and for all in as plain English I am capable of.

1. I am not opposed to HIP as one legitimate and valid approach among others. I enjoy many HIP recordings, ensembles and performers.

2. I am opposed to declaring HIP the only legitimate and valid approach. I cannot help seeing this as intellectual totalitarianism and artistic dogmatism.

3. I believe every era and every generation engages with the works of art of the past according to their own (eras and generations, that is) idea(l)s, sensibilities and tastes. Bach's generation was no exception to that, nor was Mozart's or Beethoven's.

4. I believe that the ultimate ideal of hardcore HIP is unattainable.

5. I couldn't care less on which keyboard instrument one listens to the Baroque, Classical and Early Romantic keyboard music. "There are no rules. Pleasure is the law".

That's it and that's all. This is going to be my very last post in this thread. Many thanks to my esteemed opponents premont, Que, Ken B and Mandryka for a very enjoyable, civil and funny debate, and many thanks to everybody else as well. See you guys in other threads.

[Karl Henning]

"I remember that a long time ago, I saw a staging of Macbeth. The translation was as bad as the actors and the badly painted stage. But I went out to the street undone by tragic passion. Shakespeare had managed to beat his translator."

It's good to recall, I think, that this is referred to Shakespeare's own greatness, not to the performance itself.

Even in apparent ruins, Macbeth is great.

[prémont]

That's it and that's all. This is going to be my very last post in this thread. Many thanks to my esteemed opponents premont, Que, Ken B and Mandryka for a very enjoyable, civil and funny debate, and many thanks to everybody else as well. See you guys in other threads.

Let me also thank you for an engaged and enjoyable discussion, all the way through kept in a good and civilized tone by everybody. I look forward to similar discussions when suitable topics arises.

[prémont]

Well, electronic keyboards can be tuned easily in different temperaments (not temperature, for sure a typo). This is done with Oriental scales for instance.

Or a Sarge moment caused by the temperatures we have here a the moment. Hot temperature for sure

Well, electronic keyboards are rather un-HIP, if I am not mistaken.

[San Antone]

It is very apt only because you happened to agree with his views even before he made that specific comparison.

Much as I've been enjoying this exchange, I'm beginning to feel exhaustion. Both camps have made their points and it is clearly apparent that neither is going to change position as a result of this debate, which actually amounts to each party gently and kindly (most of the time) refuting the arguments of the other party. (Karl suggested three minimal points of agreement to which I am the only one to have formally expressed approval.) This can be fun for a while but eventually it gets tiresome, at least for me. Therefore I will state my position once and for all in as plain English I am capable of.

1. I am not opposed to HIP as one legitimate and valid approach among others. I enjoy many HIP recordings, ensembles and performers.

2. I am opposed to declaring HIP the only legitimate and valid approach. I cannot help seeing this as intellectual totalitarianism and artistic dogmatism.

3. I believe every era and every generation engages with the works of art of the past according to their own (eras and generations, that is) idea(l)s, sensibilities and tastes. Bach's generation was no exception to that, nor was Mozart's or Beethoven's.

4. I believe that the ultimate ideal of hardcore HIP is unattainable.

5. I couldn't care less on which keyboard instrument one listens to the Baroque, Classical and Early Romantic keyboard music. "There are no rules. Pleasure is the law".

That's it and that's all. This is going to be my very last post in this thread. Many thanks to my esteemed opponents premont, Que, Ken B and Mandryka for a very enjoyable, civil and funny debate, and many thanks to everybody else as well. See you guys in other threads.

The two of us agreed throughout this thread, and your last post expresses my own view 100%.  One of the better threads, imo.

[Ken B]

Oh, no, please, not again music and language! And especially not music and Latin!

This isn't about language Andrei. It's about sound . We do not need a recording to reconstruct how some things sounded, there is other evidence. We also know about the great vowel shift in English. We know that the multiple line of a Dufay score were sung simultaneously not sequentially — but your arguments insist we do not in fact know that. That shows your argument is flawed.