The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Ken B]

Yes, a thousand times yes, you got me right, this is indeed my position: if some harpsichordist thinks that this is the proper way to play Gershwin according to her aesthetics, artistic vision and intellectual insights then it is just as authentic as any recording made by Gerswhin himself --- authenticity is a marker of the performer and the performance, not of the score. We as listeners are free to accept or reject it and to prefer one perforrmance to the other --- but prescribing a priori how, or within what limits, a certain piece of music should be performed strikes me as intellectual and artistic totalitarianism, and frankly I'm surprised that you of all people should not understand it.

Andrei, it's odd you should say I don't understand it but I can express it so exactly! I think I have passed the Florestan Turing test here!

[Florestan]

I completely understand exactly what I am listening to,

With all due respect, I very much doubt it --- or better said, you understand it your way, which is not at all necessarily the way they understood it back then, your undeniable and commendable theoretical and intellectual grasp of it notwithstanding. 

I prefer it above realizations which are created by other standards

.

We all do that, it's only that your standards might be / are different than mine.

What irks is the thought that the ideas postulated 3 decades ago, by admittedly wacko individuals are still held to be the current beliefs of rational listeners and musicians.

You just argued that the Antretter-Serenade was meant for stiff and still listening. Looks like the wackos are still with us. 

[Ken B]

PS Andrei, I have been meaning to ask you. Why is your handle the name of a prince of Monaco?

[Florestan]

Andrei, it's odd you should say I don't understand it but I can express it so exactly! I think I have passed the Florestan Turing test here!

If you mean that you agree with what I wrote in response to your post, I can only rejoice. If you mean that you disagree, I feel for you but hey, nobody's perfect, I'll make allowance for that, my friend.

[Florestan]

PS Andrei, I have been meaning to ask you. Why is your handle the name of a prince of Monaco?

[Elgarian Redux]

Actually you hit a very sore spot, I'm afraid. How on earth can historically authentic performance work absent historically authentic listening?

I don't understand about the sore spot - I'm trying not to hit anyone's sore spots.

But I don't understand why this is an issue. Trying to achieve something resembling historically authentic performance is one thing, and may be successful in some ways, and to some degree. But historically authentic listening is impossible to achieve.

[Florestan]

I don't understand about the sore spot - except to say that I'm trying not to hit anyone's sore spots.

As opposed to me: I was trying to push someone's buttons. 

Trying to achieve something resembling historically authentic performance is one thing, and may be successful in some ways, and to some degree.

Which ways? What degrees?

But historically authentic listening is impossible to achieve.

Exactly and precisely my point: each listening today, be it Gurn's, Florestan's or Elgarian's is highly and inescapably un-authentic.

[Ken B]

Now Andrei. All we have is the score screen name. And Florestan I Of Monaco (d 1856) is as correct and reasonable as any Schumann reference. After all, deciding you meant Schumann would require drawing inferences from your preferences and habits and so on, which you just ruled irrelevant with Mr Gershwin.

[Florestan]

Now Andrei. All we have is the score screen name. And Florestan I Of Monaco (d 1856) is as correct and reasonable as any Schumann reference. After all, deciding you meant Schumann would require drawing inferences from your preferences and habits and so on, which you just ruled irrelevant with Mr Gershwin.

Oh, I see now. Well, feel free to think of me in terms of a mid-19-th-century Monaco ruler if you wish, I don't mind in the least. After all, why woukd you think exclusively of Schumann when there's also Beethoven?

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.

[Gurn Blanston]

With all due respect, I very much doubt it --- or better said, you understand it your way, which is not at all necessarily the way they understood it back then, your undeniable and commendable theoretical and intellectual grasp of it notwithstanding. 
.

We all do that, it's only that your standards might be / are different than mine.

You just argued that the Antretter-Serenade was meant for stiff and still listening. Looks like the wackos are still with us. 

Of course I understand it my way, and I realize that and I know that I can never understand it any other way. It is just like everyone's understanding of everything. What possible argument can there be with that?  You wonder. perhaps why I get pissed off at you. Well, this is a part of it, certainly.

Another part is implying that I didn't understand this morning whilst listening to that serenade that Mozart's contemporaries didn't have a CD player to listen to it on. I mean, no shit!  I could certainly have invited a hundred people over to my house to drink and converse while it was playing, but I decided to just be an old silverback conservative and simply listen to it. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my choice of instrumentation, since I wasn't making the slightest attempt at reconstructing the past. Furthermore, I rarely ever do.

But beyond that, if I choose to listen to a mass performance with the Proper sections added to the Ordinary, this also doesn't mean in any way that I am fooling myself  into attempting to relive the past. It merely means I am curious how the various pieces would fit into the larger context of the whole. It seems clear to me that this concept eludes you altogether, since you seem to be too 'all-or-nothing' to be able to grasp it.

Context is what history is all about. Recreating context (in the bigger picture, not the microcosm) is what historians do. And no, I actually do agree with Alan, I think Mozart, like any other artist, would have liked people to listen when his music was played. He wrote about it at length to Leopold when he was in Paris. He must not have realized then how irrelevant people would think his feelings were today. 

[Ken B]

Oh, I see now. Well, feel free to think of me in terms of a mid-19-th-century Monaco ruler if you wish, I don't mind in the least. After all, why woukd you think exclusively of Schumann when there's also Beethoven?

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.

So here we have the real difference Andrei. You say "there is only the score". I say there is more than just the score, and that that more can help us to understand the score.

If I see a Renaissance painting, and see a man with holes in his hands and a bunch of thorns on his head I draw a conclusion about who he is; you do not. All we have, after all, is the canvas.

[Florestan]

Of course I understand it my way, and I realize that and I know that I can never understand it any other way. It is just like everyone's understanding of everything. What possible argument can there be with that?  You wonder. perhaps why I get pissed off at you. Well, this is a part of it, certainly.

Another part is implying that I didn't understand this morning whilst listening to that serenade that Mozart's contemporaries didn't have a CD player to listen to it on. I mean, no shit!  I could certainly have invited a hundred people over to my house to drink and converse while it was playing, but I decided to just be an old silverback conservative and simply listen to it.

In other words, you decided to be an old silverback romantic. Good, more power to yo!.

Context is what history is all about. Recreating context (in the bigger picture, not the microcosm) is what historians do.

Correct. That's exactly why I alluded to the context of the Antretter-Serenade.

And no, I actually do agree with Alan, I think Mozart, like any other artist, would have liked people to listen when his music was played. He wrote about it at length to Leopold when he was in Paris.

[/quote]

He wrote about it at length to Leopold about music he composed for the Parisian audience, he didn't mean the Antretter-Serenade. And judging by the letters you alluded to he was not at all someone who composed music because he really felt like it, but because he cleverly calculated at what exact moment the audience would "shhhhh" and at what other exact moment the audience would applaud, all this in view of gaining fame and perhaps an employment. We are still far away from "listening in awe to a masterpiece of an immortal master".

[Mahlerian]

He wrote about it at length to Leopold about music he composed for the Parisian audience, he didn't mean the Antretter-Serenade. And judging by the letters you alluded to he was not at all someone who composed music because he really felt like it, but because he cleverly calculated at what exact moment the audience would "shhhhh" and at what other exact moment the audience would applaud, all this in view of gaining fame and perhaps an employment. We are still far away from "listening in awe to a masterpiece of an immortal master".

For which he ridiculed the audience as asses who didn't appreciate more subtle craft.

As someone who loves Mahler, I really don't see a contradiction between art and entertainment.  Finely crafted art can also entertain.

[Florestan]

You say "there is only the score".

I emphatically don't. Have you ever read my signature line?

If I see a Renaissance painting, and see a man with holes in his hands and a bunch of thorns on his head I draw a conclusion about who he is; you do not. All we have, after all, is the canvas.

I sincerely hope that in writing this you are a contrarian just for the sake of it, because if you really mean it then I must seriously question your reading comprehension skills.

[Florestan]

For which he ridiculed the audience as asses who didn't appreciate more subtle craft.

That's how we (like to) read it today. I doubt that's what he really meant.

As someone who loves Mahler, I really don't see a contradiction between art and entertainment.  Finely crafted art can also entertain.

Agreed on all accounts.

EDIT: Hey, I broke my vow! 

[Ken B]

Andrei

Or may have not. We'll never know what composer X who died that many years ago may have personally expected. All we have is a score.

Meet Andrei

I emphatically don't. Have you ever read my signature line?

I sincerely hope that in writing this you are a contrarian just for the sake of it, because if you really mean it then I must seriously question your reading comprehension skills.

[Mahlerian]

That's how we (like to) read it today. I doubt that's what he really meant.

Now I'm interested.  What do you think he really meant?

[Florestan]

Andrei
Meet Andrei

Context, Ken, context! Irony, Ken, irony! For God's sake, Ken, for God's sake! You do disappoint me big time. 

[Florestan]

Now I'm interested.  What do you think he really meant?

I think that he just loved to play a cleverly calculated trick on the Parisian audience. I do no think that he meant this as some sort of "Take that, you assholes who are not able to appreciate true and everlasting art!" --- after all, why did he go to Paris to begin with?

See? That's why I'm saying that divorcing music as art from music as performance is as Romantic as it gets. Think about it: with the possible exception of the three last symphonies and the Requiem, Mozart never ever wrote any music without (a) specific performer(s) and venue in mind, or without a commission --- the idea of writing for posterity was completely alien to him, just as it was to all of his contemporaries. His letters are abundant testimony for that.

[Ken B]

Context, Ken, context! Irony, Ken, irony! For God's sake, Ken, for God's sake! You do disappoint me big time. 

Context, exactly. We know what the painter meant because we have more than the canvas, we have his context. We have context with Bach and so we can use that and not just the score to infer intent or what he would have anticipated.