The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Ken B]

Yeah, I only listen to chamber music, solo piano and early vocal music.  If I do listen to orchestral music, it is small PI ensembles, and not much beyond Haydn, with the exception of Debussy, especially Pelleas et Melisande.

But if I had to say, classical music would rank only third or fourth among the music I enjoy.

I think it right and proper that if you say "The only orchestral music I listen to is Debussy" then you would also say "and I like almost everything else more." I have had tons of grief on this board making this simple point!

[Gurn Blanston]

I thought I was the only one here who didn't like Orchestral music much. Nor opera.

I expect 80-90% of my music collection is chamber or solo keyboard music. I don't so much dislike the balance, I just don't have a compelling need for it. So no, not just you (or San Antone!).

[prémont]

I thought I was the only one here who didn't like Orchestral music much. Nor opera.

My music collection doesn't contain any opera at all, and I do not miss them. 

As to symphonic music I own a fair number of recordings of Beethoven's orchestral music and orchestral works by Brahms, Carl Nielsen, Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith and a few others, but it amounts all in all to less than 5% of my entire collection.

[Karl Henning]

What can I say?  I have always liked orchestral music, and the experience of playing in orchestras has only served to reinforce that.

[North Star]

I think it right and proper that if you say "The only orchestral music I listen to is Debussy" then you would also say "and I like almost everything else more." I have had tons of grief on this board making this simple point!

This might belong to the Grammar Grumble, but simple and simple-minded do not always mean the same thing.

[Madiel]

I like orchestral music that was actually written for orchestra.

If it was written for piano or a chamber ensemble, leave it the hell alone.

[Karl Henning]

You have quite the quarrel with Ravel, then.

[Madiel]

You have quite the quarrel with Ravel, then.

Not especially, no. I have a lot less quarrel with composers doing it themselves (especially not when they do it nearly contemporaneously with the original), and Ravel didn't do it that much, and he himself regarded at least one of his orchestrations to be a mistake.

[amw]

Ravel should have kept his hands off Musorgsky's Pictures from an Exhibition though (likewise most of the other aspiring orchestrators out there....)

[Karl Henning]

Not especially, no. I have a lot less quarrel with composers doing it themselves (especially not when they do it nearly contemporaneously with the original), and Ravel didn't do it that much, and he himself regarded at least one of his orchestrations to be a mistake.

You remind me that I need to finish that biography of Ravel.

[Florestan]

I'm pleased.

We should discuss it together systematically, chapter by chapter.

That would be impossible: I went very quickly through, or even altogether skipped, the chapters dealing with the analytical approach. They were too dry, technical and abstract for me.

What I can tell you is that after reading this book (and a few others) I realized that (1) the Romantic philosophy of music is quite at odds with Romantic music, (2) I love the latter but don't subscribe to the former and (3) for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music. If you are interested in discussing these points I'll try to elaborate them.

[Madiel]

(1) the Romantic philosophy of music is quite at odds with Romantic music, (2) I love the latter but don't subscribe to the former and (3) for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music. If you are interested in discussing these points I'll try to elaborate them.

*grabs popcorn*

[Mandryka]

That would be impossible: I went very quickly through, or even altogether skipped, the chapters dealing with the analytical approach. They were too dry, technical and abstract for me.

What I can tell you is that after reading this book (and a few others) I realized that (1) the Romantic philosophy of music is quite at odds with Romantic music, (2) I love the latter but don't subscribe to the former and (3) for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music. If you are interested in discussing these points I'll try to elaborate them.

I'd love to hear what your ideas are, the only problem is that over the next two weeks I'm travelling a lot and so I may not have the opportunity to respond thoughtfully.

[Florestan]

I'd love to hear what your ideas are, the only problem is that over the next two weeks I'm travelling a lot and so I may not have the opportunity to respond thoughtfully.

No problem, I'll postpone it. Works for me actually, I'll have more time to give my thoughts a coherent form.

[prémont]

No problem, I'll postpone it. Works for me actually, I'll have more time to give my thoughts a coherent form.

And you will have to tolerate that I am interested too. 

[Florestan]

And you will have to tolerate that I am interested too. 

The more, the merrier. 

[Elgarian Redux]

for all their anti-Romantic utterances the HIP movement carries a lot of Romantic ideological baggage and in a sense it can be even seen as the ultimate triumph of the Romantic philosophy of music.

I'm not sure what the thinking is here about Romanticism - are we talking in the sense of 'music-historical', or 'historically authentic'? (I'm chiming in after a two-year gap without reading more than a handful of the preceding posts. Recipe for disastrous intervention!)

But for the devil of it, I'll add a different perspective, which I think I might describe as having some romanticism in it (with a small 'r'). What I always felt about the HIP philosophy from the moment it impacted upon me, was how much more feeling there was; what greater variety of feeling there was; and how much more fun. Listening to the best HIP performances was like seeing a movie in colour when you've been used to watching it on a black and white TV. Things that were silky and smoothed-out became sharp and edgy and more defined.

I like the idea of seeing Handel or Rameau through a historically-authentic lens, but that isn't the prime cause of my enthusiasm. It may indeed be that listening to HIP Handel brings me closer to 'the real Handel', and it does somehow feel like that. But if it were not also more fun, I'd soon lose interest. And also, my HIP enthusiasm doesn't stop me from revelling in the bedazzlingness of Janet Baker and Raymond Leppard. So it's a phenomenological point of view that I think I might describe as vaguely romantic, personalised, and a bit squishy.

[He looks around the room, notices the whispering, and manages to hear some of it:
"What did that have to do with anything we've been saying?"
"I don't know!!"]

[Florestan]

I'm not sure what the thinking is here about Romanticism - are we talking in the sense of 'music-historical', or 'historically authentic'?

I'll begin by offering a quote.

[The true performer] lives only for the work, which he understands as the composer understood it and which he now performs. He does not make his personality count in any way. All his thoughts and actions are directed towards bringing into being all [that] the composer sealed in his work [...].

(emphasis mine)

Is this a fair description of what the HIP movement aims for?

[Mandryka]

I'll begin by offering a quote.

. He does not make his personality count in any way. ].[/i]

(emphasis mine)

Is this a fair description of what the HIP movement aims for?

No because the composer may have expected that performances would be creative in some  ways. To take an extreme example, the score may just consist of a figured bass and melody.

One of the tasks of the HIP project is to unearth the sorts of expressive freedoms performers had.

[Elgarian Redux]

I'll begin by offering a quote.

[The true performer] lives only for the work, which he understands as the composer understood it and which he now performs. He does not make his personality count in any way. All his thoughts and actions are directed towards bringing into being all [that] the composer sealed in his work [...].

(emphasis mine)

Is this a fair description of what the HIP movement aims for?

I don't think I'm well-enough informed to know. It seems likely that at least a substantial proportion of HIP advocates would be aiming for that. But if I think of William Christie, for instance, and Les Arts Florissants, I'd take some convincing that he achieves that ideal, even if he were aiming for it. Performers like Daneman and Petibon are, I'm quite sure, personally invested in what they are singing. (It certainly sounds as if they are.) When you experience something like Les Indes Galantes a la Christie, you see something very much in the spirit of Rameau, yet at the same time, something he could hardly have conceived. But maybe the introduction of staged works into the discussion muddies the water too much - I can see it might.

Alright then, let's consider something like the Christie/Daneman/Petibon recordings of Couperin. I would say the singing of Daneman and Petibon very much makes their personality count. I don't think I could define it, but a different pair of singers would, I'm quite sure, fail to bring to it the expression and sensitivity that they achieve.

I think what I'm saying is that while there may be a prevalent committed HIPster attitude along the lines of your definition, I'm not so convinced that the HIP works that I love fall within the definition. (I don't know how Christie's interpretations are regarded by such strict HIPsterians.)

Do remember that I know almost nothing. I mostly only listen.