The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[prémont]

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.

I still do not understand the use of the word Romantic in this context. I think the word may be misused, as it tend to induce quite other associations. What is the opposite of Romantic in this sense?

I did not order Goehr's book, since the "important" parts of it can be read online. What I have read from it until now seems to me to be overcomplicated verbiage.

[Mahlerian]

Many composers, Bach among them, composed for future listeners and also themselves performed their works several times during their lifetime.

Florestan has said that he doesn't believe this is true.  I don't know if I would say that he intended works such as the B minor Mass for actual performance, but he certainly compiled it in order to represent what he considered the best of his work.  And that despite its impracticality.

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.

Even if it is anachronistic, that doesn't mean that it violates the idea of recreating historical practices and norms.  The very idea of recreating something from the past implies that it doesn't otherwise exist in the present.

Anyway, Bach and Mozart of all composers were profoundly aware of and influenced by music of the past.  Their music-making did not exist in a vacuum, and when Mozart published some of his works, surely he intended them to spread further than simply the event or commissioner for which they were written.

[prémont]

..... pianists should take their hands off Bach's music because the result is an abomination.

I do not think that more than one GMGer wrote that. As I wrote by then the problem rests with the musicians and not the instruments. A period instrument does not guarantee an informed performance, but a modern instrument may invite to an uninformed performance, because a considerable number of pianists do not stand the temptation. I Bach's music I do enjoy a small number of pianists, whom I think offer informed performances. And NB: An informed performance is not a unique, ideal, definitive interpretation but only one among the infinite number of options you still have, even if you respect the knowledge we have about performance practice in the Baroque age.

[Florestan]

I still do not understand the use of the word Romantic in this context. I think the word may be misused, as it tend to induce quite other associations. What is the opposite of Romantic in this sense?

Well, it can't have an opposite since it describes an aesthetic and philosophical movement.

This might help:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-19th-romantic/

I also strongly urge you to read the doctoral dissertation I posted above. It is accessible, well researched, has no overcomplicated verbiage and addresses issues of the utmost relevance to our discussion.

I did not order Goehr's book, since the "important" parts of it can be read online.

I know, I posted a link to the whole book in this thread

What I have read from it until now seems to me to be overcomplicated verbiage.

I suggest you skip the analytical approach part which indeed fits in your description and go straight to the historical approach part, which is eminently readable and highly instructive.

[Elgarian Redux]

And why should an attempt to recreate the history be an expression of romantic philosophy? Is all historical investigation romantic pr se?

I think what Andrei means (and he will tell me if I'm wrong) is that there is a Great Divide between us and (let's say) the time of Handel. That great barrier is Romanticism with a capital R. We are so deeply imbued with Romantic ideals (individualism, emotional expression and so on) that it infiltrates all our thinking even when we're not aware of it.

So, when we look at the past, we subconsciously project our own post-Romantic thoughts and feelings into it, even though they are 'ours', and not 'theirs'. It's a kind of pathetic fallacy: similar to describing the sea as 'cruel'. Andrei insists that the HIPsters do this when they regard past-performance practice. Even when seeking authenticity, they are bringing a post-Romantic sensibility to the meaning and value of that authenticity. They can't help doing that. None of us can.

When I thrill to a performance of 'Dope Notte' (both modern and HIP) and laugh aloud and punch the air and call it rock and roll, I'm experiencing a post-Romantic 'something' that Handel almost certainly would have been astonished and perplexed by. If a HIPster were to tell me I should not be experiencing the music like that because it wasn't a historically authentic response, then I'd decline his advice and continue to bop around the kitchen.

[prémont]

Florestan has said that he doesn't believe this is true.  I don't know if I would say that he intended works such as the B minor Mass for actual performance, but he certainly compiled it in order to represent what he considered the best of his work.  And that despite its impracticality.

Even if it is anachronistic, that doesn't mean that it violates the idea of recreating historical practices and norms.  The very idea of recreating something from the past implies that it doesn't otherwise exist in the present.

Anyway, Bach and Mozart of all composers were profoundly aware of and influenced by music of the past.  Their music-making did not exist in a vacuum, and when Mozart published some of his works, surely he intended them to spread further than simply the event or commissioner for which they were written.

I agree completely with this.

[Florestan]

Florestan has said that he doesn't believe this is true.

Let's say I have not yet found any strong evidence for it. Of course, this doesn't mean there is none.

when Mozart published some of his works, surely he intended them to spread further than simply the event or commissioner for which they were written.

Why, surely. A larger clientele for his published music meant larger revenues. More money, of which Mozart was oftenly in a dire need.

[Florestan]

I think what Andrei means (and he will tell me if I'm wrong) is that there is a Great Divide between us and (let's say) the time of Handel. That great barrier is Romanticism with a capital R. We are so deeply imbued with Romantic ideals (individualism, emotional expression and so on) that it infiltrates all our thinking even when we're not aware of it.

So, when we look at the past, we subconsciously project our own post-Romantic thoughts and feelings into it, even though they are 'ours', and not 'theirs'. It's a kind of pathetic fallacy: similar to describing the sea as 'cruel'. Andrei insists that the HIPsters do this when they regard past-performance practice. Even when seeking authenticity, they are bringing a post-Romantic sensibility to the meaning and value of that authenticity. They can't help doing that. None of us can.

When I thrill to a performance of 'Dope Notte' (both modern and HIP) and laugh aloud and punch the air and call it rock and roll, I'm experiencing a post-Romantic 'something' that Handel almost certainly would have been astonished and perplexed by. If a HIPster were to tell me I should not be experiencing the music like that because it wasn't a historically authentic response, then I'd decline his advice and continue to bop around the kitchen.

Excellently put, Alan. You got me right on all accounts. Thanks.

[prémont]

I also strongly urge you to read the doctoral dissertation I posted above. It is accessible, well researched, has no overcomplicated verbiage and addresses issues of the utmost relevance to our discussion.

Well, I began reading it, but do not understand what instrumental virtuosity in 1815 - 1850 has got to do with our topic.

I suggest you skip the analytical approach part which indeed fits in your description and go straight to the historical approach part, which is eminently readable and highly instructive.

I did go directly to the historical approach part. 

[Elgarian Redux]

Excellently put, Alan. You got me right on all accounts. Thanks.

There you are, you see. I may be slow on the post-Romantic uptake, but I get there in the end.

[Mahlerian]

Why, surely. A larger clientele for his published music meant larger revenues. More money, of which Mozart was oftenly in a dire need.

If Mozart merely wanted to make money, he would not have written such difficult music.  It would be far better financially to write music that catered to the "asses" and "cattle" than to produce works oriented towards connoisseurs.

This does leave another possibility, that Mozart was aware that he was writing music that was not as effective as possible at pleasing mass audiences, and did it anyway because he was incompetent.

[Florestan]

If Mozart merely wanted to make money

I didn't claim that but his letters conspicuously show that he wasn't the otherworldly idealist that the Romantic mythology has turned him into, either.

This does leave another possibility, that Mozart was aware that he was writing music that was not as effective as possible at pleasing mass audiences, and did it anyway because he was incompetent a genius and could write no other music.

FTFY.

[prémont]

I think what Andrei means (and he will tell me if I'm wrong) is that there is a Great Divide between us and (let's say) the time of Handel. That great barrier is Romanticism with a capital R. We are so deeply imbued with Romantic ideals (individualism, emotional expression and so on) that it infiltrates all our thinking even when we're not aware of it.

So, when we look at the past, we subconsciously project our own post-Romantic thoughts and feelings into it, even though they are 'ours', and not 'theirs'. It's a kind of pathetic fallacy: similar to describing the sea as 'cruel'. Andrei insists that the HIPsters do this when they regard past-performance practice. Even when seeking authenticity, they are bringing a post-Romantic sensibility to the meaning and value of that authenticity. They can't help doing that. None of us can.

Thanks for this elaboration. I may agree with some of the premises when the word Romantic is used in this way, but not with the conclusion. Individualism wasn't invented in the Romantic age, nor was emotional expression. And I am convinced, that it to some extent is possible for a reflective person to listen to Early music with some degree of "early" ears, but it demands some training. Just to mention one thing one has got to become confidential with earlier temperaments.

When I thrill to a performance of 'Dope Notte' (both modern and HIP) and laugh aloud and punch the air and call it rock and roll, I'm experiencing a post-Romantic 'something' that Handel almost certainly would have been astonished and perplexed by. If a HIPster were to tell me I should not be experiencing the music like that because it wasn't a historically authentic response, then I'd decline his advice and continue to bop around the kitchen.

Don't you think that Early music could "swing".

[Elgarian Redux]

I'm thinking of Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." He wrote that sure enough. But no man spends 5 years of his life in a garret composing a Dictionary richer and finer than the world has seen, just for money. A lesser dictionary would have sufficed for that. There's a complicated issue about motivation here, where financial reward and 'for-its-own-sake-ness' juggle for position as motivations. I think the 'doing it for money' angle is a bit of a red herring, if only because it's not resolvable.

[Florestan]

Well, I began reading it, but do not understand what instrumental virtuosity in 1815 - 1850 has got to do with our topic.

A lot, actually. Just keep reading.

I did go directly to the historical approach part. 

I am greatly puzzled, honestly. I found it to be a fascinating book overall.

[Mahlerian]

I didn't claim that but his letters conspicuously show that he wasn't the otherworldly idealist that the Romantic mythology has turned him into, either.

I didn't claim that he was an otherworldly idealist either, or a Romantic hero.  He was a craftsman and artisan as well as an artist.

This does leave another possibility, that Mozart was aware that he was writing music that was not as effective as possible at pleasing mass audiences, and did it anyway because he was a genius and could write no other music.

FTFY.

If he was such a genius, why could he write no other music?  Surely he knew how to simplify his style and make it more easily accessible.  You know, cut out those chromatic harmonies and replace them with simpler ones, or use exclusively square two- and four-bar phrases.  There are lots of things he could do to make sure that even the cattle can understand, which he didn't.  If he were a genius, surely he would have the facility to accomplish those basic tasks as well as the more difficult one of writing the music he actually wrote.

[Florestan]

Individualism wasn't invented in the Romantic age, nor was emotional expression.

That's true. It's just that the Romantic Sge brought them both to paroxistic levels.

And I am convinced, that it to some extent is possible for a reflective person to listen to Early music with some degree of "early" ears, but it demands some training. Just to mention one thing one has got to become confidential with earlier temperaments.

No argument from me here.

Don't you think that Early music could "swing".

It can and it does. For us. Today.

[Elgarian Redux]

Don't you think that Early music could "swing".

I accuse you of misplaced post-Romantic sensibility, Sir!

But seriously, the concept of swing is a modern one, I imagine. Swing, rock and roll - it is you and I who bring these to the table, I think - not the early musicians. But I wouldn't want to insist on the point. Just seems likely.

[Florestan]

He was a craftsman and artisan as well as an artist.

Exactly.

If he was such a genius, why could he write no other music? 

Why should he?

[Elgarian Redux]

That's true. It's just that the Romantic Age brought them both to paroxistic levels.

I have learned a new word today. Paroxistic.