The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

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.

You still don't get, do you? What he intended or anticipated is irelevant --- or better said, it's relevant only for people who take everything ad literam and by the book (cf Hogwood's delight at discovering a hitherto unkown set of instructions for playing embellishments). For creative and imaginative people the score is not a bible and they are not afraid to dare because the music is behind those dots. 

And don't play the obviously false analogy between painting and music, I don't buy it.

[Mahlerian]

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?

I didn't say "assholes," I said "asses," just as Mozart did.

"For whom will it displease?  As for the discerning Frenchmen who may be present, I should certainly desire to give them pleasure; but for the jolterheads, I don't see that it will be any great misfortune not to please them.  Yet I still hope even the asses will find something in it to like; and then I have not forgotten the premier coup d'archet, which is sufficient.  The cattle here make a very important matter of that, but, for my part, I see no great difference; they begin here much in the same manner as in other places." - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

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

Schoenberg usually didn't either.  What's your point?

[Florestan]

"For whom will it displease?  As for the discerning Frenchmen who may be present, I should certainly desire to give them pleasure; but for the jolterheads, I don't see that it will be any great misfortune not to please them.  Yet I still hope even the asses will find something in it to like

Exactly. Mozart expressly aimed for, and hoped to, please everybody, be they discerning listeners or asses. He never despised his audience the way (some of) the Romantics and Modernists did --- and he didn't do it precisely because for him music as art was inconceivable without music as performance.

[Mahlerian]

Exactly. Mozart expressly aimed for, and hoped to, please everybody, be they discerning listeners or asses. He never despised his audience the way (some of) the Romantics and Modernists did --- and he didn't do it precisely because for him music as art was inconceivable without music as performance.

Such as whom?  Who despised the audience worse than calling them stupid beasts?

[Madiel]

You still don't get, do you? What he intended or anticipated is irelevant --- or better said, it's relevant only for people who take everything ad literam and by the book (cf Hogwood's delight at discovering a hitherto unkown set of instructions for playing embellishments). For creative and imaginative people the score is not a bible and they are not afraid to dare because the music is behind those dots. 

And don't play the obviously false analogy between painting and music, I don't buy it.

You seem to me to keep presenting things as if there are only two extreme options.

"Relevant" is not a synonym for "definitive".

Also... people completely misuse the Bible as well. As evidenced by the notion of something being "a bible". The Bible was written in a history and a context and a culture, as well as in 3 different languages over a span of many centuries. All things that people tend to forget.

[Mandryka]

I knew it was a very bad idea to come back to this thread and I was certain I would regret it rather soon. It's unbelievable how emotionally charged this topic can be. I'll avoid it like plague in the future. 

Don't give up! You're doing a stalwart job. There are things I want to say, there's a quote from Quantz in the book on Museums for example, but it's too hard to type with just my phone.

By the way I've just ordered Arthur Danto"s book.

[Florestan]

Don't give up! You're doing a stalwart job.

Oh! Thank you.

There are things I want to say

Can hardly wait.

[Elgarian Redux]

I had to leave off in order to go to bed, last night, and returned this morning thinking to find some resolution. But having read through the above, I find two things:

1. I don't understand much of the discussion.
2. I don't think much of it has anything to do with the way I listen to music. So even if I thought I did understand, I'd be insufficiently qualified to comment on most of what's being said.

I will, though, make one point if I may, about the analogy between painting and music. Like all analogies, it has limitations, but an awareness of it - a recognition of the interconnections - is one of the most valuable aids to the appreciation of both arts that I know. One does not need to demonstrate a 100% definable correlation for the idea to be of value. The 'modern' psychological baggage we bring with us when we view (say) a Dutch 17th century landscape really does bear some relation to the mindset with which we listen to music of earlier periods. The analogy is limited in scope, but it isn't false.

[Florestan]

I had to leave off in order to go to bed, last night, and returned this morning thinking to find some resolution. But having read through the above, I find two things:

1. I don't understand much of the discussion.
2. I don't think much of it has anything to do with the way I listen to music. So even if I thought I did understand, I'd be insufficiently qualified to comment on most of what's being said.

Basically, I posit two things.

1. Performing music in a concert hall to a silent, reverent and attentive audience is a typically Romantic act which doesn't cease to be so because the music performed is by Handel. Moreover, performing in such an environment music which was expressly written for a completely different one is an anachronism.

2. The idea that any piece of music is actually a work (Werk), ie an abstract, disembodied entity sufficient in itself and whose value and meaning is not dependent on any particular performance is a typically Romantic notion. Applying it to music which has been expressly written as ephemeral entertainment is an anachronism.

Therefore, the HIP movement, for all their anti-Romantic stance, is in fact highly influenced by Romanticism, and for all their claims to authenticity is in fact highly anachronistic.

I don't even claim originality in this. As I said, Lydia Goehr explicitly or implicitly makes them in her book. What is beyond my comprehension is the amount of wrath I have incurred upon myself simply by stating them.

The 'modern' psychological baggage we bring with us when we view (say) a Dutch 17th century landscape really does bear some relation to the mindset with which we listen to music of earlier periods.

Agreed.

[Elgarian Redux]

Basically, I posit two things.

1. Performing music in a concert hall to a silent, reverent and attentive audience is a typically Romantic act which doesn't cease to be so because the music performed is by Handel. Moreover, performing in such an environment music which was expressly written for a completely different one is an anachronism.

2. The idea that any piece of music is actually a work (Werk), ie an abstract, disembodied entity sufficient in itself and whose value and meaning is not dependent on any particular performance is a typically Romantic notion. Applying it to music which has been expressly written as ephemeral entertainment is an anachronism.

I agree with both these statements. But then, I'd be foolish not to: every way in which we interact with the past is an anachronism. It can't not be.

Therefore, the HIP movement, for all their anti-Romantic stance, is in fact highly influenced by Romanticism, and for all their claims to authenticity is in fact highly anachronistic.

Self evident. The drive to try to reconstruct an authentic interpretation of any work is anachronistic. It's an essentially modern impulse.

If this is all you're saying, then who could disagree? However I don't think the issue is bipolar. When I listen to (say) Immerseel's Beethoven, I do think it brings me meaningfully closer to what a Beethovian audience would have experienced in his day than, say, Karajan's Beethoven would. I can't quantify this in any sense, but the use of period instruments alone would produce a sound field that more closely resembled Beethoven's.

But I'm driven again to what I said at the start. I enjoy Immerseel's Beethoven primarily because it's a lot more fun. It's "enhanced authenticity" is a bonus feature that I don't really care much about.

What is beyond my comprehension is the amount of wrath I have incurred upon myself simply by stating them.

Well I wouldn't know about that Andrei. I'm not angry at all. Not even a smidgeon of wrath!

[Florestan]

the use of period instruments alone would produce a sound field that more closely resembled Beethoven's.

I can only quote Taruskin here: instruments don't make music, people do. 

But I'm driven again to what I said at the start. I enjoy Immerseel's Beethoven primarily because it's a lot more fun. It's "enhanced authenticity" is a bonus feature that I don't really care much about.

What is discussed here --- at least what I try to discuss --- is not the quality of HIP music-making but its philosophical and conceptual underpinnings. The whole debate started actually in another thread when some posters claimed that HIP is the only legitimate and valid way to go with "early music" (a very fluid concept in itself, witness the attempts at HIP Brahms) and that, for instance, pianists should take their hands off Bach's music because the result is an abomination. I took issues with that and that's how the whole thing started. You can find a summary of my position here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3920.msg1164239.html#msg1164239

Well I wouldn't know about that Andrei. I'm not angry at all. Not even a smidgeon of wrath!

Of course I didn't mean you, Alan.

[North Star]

I can only quote Taruskin here: instruments don't make music, people do. 

Because you cannot legitimately claim that Alan is wrong, you mean?

[Mandryka]

The thing that Quantz says that's quoted in the imaginary museums book which caught my attention is to with instruments.

He says that each instrument has its own unique affects.

I can't get the quote now, I'll find it when I'm back home.

If this is a widespread idea then I think it has some consequences for decisions about instruments.

[prémont]

1. I don't understand much of the discussion.
2. I don't think much of it has anything to do with the way I listen to music. So even if I thought I did understand, I'd be insufficiently qualified to comment on most of what's being said.

This is very close to my sentiments and the cause why I haven't participated until now.

But:

Basically, I posit two things.
1. Performing music in a concert hall to a silent, reverent and attentive audience is a typically Romantic act which doesn't cease to be so because the music performed is by Handel. Moreover, performing in such an environment music which was expressly written for a completely different one is an anachronism.

I do not understand the use of the word romantic in this context. Do you mean nostalgic?

And while we try to recreate the music proper as well as possible, - and everybody knows that this is only partially possible, this is no reason to try to recreate the original listening conditions (candle lights, wigs et c.). If we tried to do so, I would rather talk about romantic thinking.

And you also - when talking about anachronism - predispose musically educated listeners. Uneducated listeners might think that the music was written to day for the actual concert. So for uneducated listeners there might be no anachronism at all.

Many composers, Bach among them, composed for future listeners and also themselves performed their works several times during their lifetime. Were all other performances, than the first anachronistic? And someone composing for future listeners knows that the preforming conditions will change, meaning that the performance as such will change. In the Baroque age this was the condition of life, the performance depended upon what musicians were at hand and upon the imagination of the musicians, so there was a lot of freedom in performance. And performing Baroque music to day we have of course a similar freedom, and using it must be considered authentic in principle. This brings me to state, that no modern HIP performer thinks that he performs the music just as Bach did. But the performer tries to make the music as "authentic" as possible, among other things by avoiding instruments and playing techniques which weren't available to Bach. And why should an attempt to recreate the history be an expression of romantic philosophy? Is all historical investigation romantic pr se? When a historian tries to recreate former ages, he very well knows, that he cannot achieve but an incomplete picture of the past. It is similar with music of the past.

2. The idea that any piece of music is actually a work (Werk), ie an abstract, disembodied entity sufficient in itself and whose value and meaning is not dependent on any particular performance is a typically Romantic notion. Applying it to music which has been expressly written as ephemeral entertainment is an anachronism.

Therefore, the HIP movement, for all their anti-Romantic stance, is in fact highly influenced by Romanticism, and for all their claims to authenticity is in fact highly anachronistic.

Composers since long began to write their compositions down in order to save them for future and make it possible to perform them again e.g. Machaut's Messe and Bach's St. Matthew passion, so the repeated performances of music is not anachronistic by itself. Machaut intended his Messe to be performed every year also after his death to remember him. The claim that all music of earlier times was written for ephemeral entertainment is false.

[Florestan]

I do not understand the use of the word romantic in this context. Do you mean nostalgic?

I mean the Romantic (capital R) musical aesthetics as formulated by, say, ETA Hoffmann, Wackenroder, Novalis, Hegel, Schelling or Schopenhauer. You'll find a lot of information on that in Goehr's book, which I remember you ordered.

Also very interesting and useful in this respect, and bearing direct relevance for our debate, is the following doctoral dissertation:

The Virtuoso under Subjection: How German Idealism Shaped The Critical Reception of Instrumental Virtuosity in Europe, 1815 - 1850

The claim that all music of earlier times was written for ephemeral entertainment is false.

I made no such claim and I agree it's false.

[Florestan]

Because you cannot legitimately claim that Alan is wrong, you mean?

No, because the sound of the instruments per se bears no relation whatsoever to the quality of music-making.  Instruments do not play themselves, not even period instruments. You need people to make them come alive. Simply using period instruments does not automatically warrant a better performance than one on modern instruments.

[North Star]

No, because the sound of the instruments per se bears no relation whatsoever to the quality of music-making.  Instruments do not play themselves, not even period instruments. You need people to make them come alive. Simply using period instruments does not automatically warrant a better performance than one on modern instruments.

This is a ridiculous strawman. Nobody claimed that a gut-stringed German violin from 1600s without anyone playing it, would result in an interpretation closer to what Bach had in mind when writing the Chaconne, than Christian Tetzlaff playing it on a modern violin by Stefan-Peter Greiner. And another thing, you are right that instruments do not play themselves, but this should make you realize that it's patently false to claim that the sound of the instruments, per se, doesn't bear a relation to the music-making, as the sound of the instrument does not exist outside music-making, and it is affected by the musician playing it. But the point is, it is not only the musician affecting the instrument, but also the instrument affecting the musician.

[Florestan]

it is not only the musician affecting the instrument, but also the instrument affecting the musician.

What do you mean by that?

[North Star]

What do you mean by that?

I mean that the way an instrument feels, responds to touch, and sounds, affect how the musician plays it.

[Elgarian Redux]

I can only quote Taruskin here: instruments don't make music, people do. 

Yes but that's to take what I said too literally. What I mean is that when I hear the sound of a fortepiano, or a period violin played with that delicious piercing, scraping, reduced-vibrato sound (assuming of course a competent player), then I am already - other things being equal - somewhat closer to the sound field experienced by an audience of the period.
I mean just that - no more, no less.

What is discussed here --- at least what I try to discuss --- is not the quality of HIP music-making but its philosophical and conceptual underpinnings. The whole debate started actually in another thread when some posters claimed that HIP is the only legitimate and valid way to go with "early music" (a very fluid concept in itself, witness the attempts at HIP Brahms) and that, for instance, pianists should take their hands off Bach's music because the result is an abomination. I took issues with that and that's how the whole thing started.

With this I am fully in agreement. It's one of those absolutist stances that we both shy away from.