The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Florestan]

The Biber Rosary Sonatas are surely a 'work', with metaphysical concepts.

They are not metaphysical but religious, specifically Christian. The difference is huge.

[Mandryka]

The Biber Rosary Sonatas are surely a 'work', with metaphysical concepts.

Yes, but text related. When there's a text  the vision is in the text, the music is like an exegesis.

[Florestan]

Strauss waltz concerts started with the Nazis, I think.

They did, but even if they had started with the Weimar Republic they would have been equally un-historical and downright absurd. I imagine both Johanns rolling on their graves laughing at the idea that their waltzes, polkas and galopps are played by musicians dressed in ultra-formal attire before a silent, reverent and attentive audience. In this case, if one wants HIP one must go to Andre Rieu's concerts which are far closer to what the Strausses themselves did and heard than the pretentious Vienna PO New Year's Concert.

[Florestan]

Yes, but text related. When there's a text  the vision is in the text, the music is like an exegesis.

This as well.

[prémont]

.....And very broadly, in its recognition of the idea of HIP interpretation as essentially modern,...

I think the interest in HIP reflects our general interest in our history, which is far from a modern occurrence. Think of the Old Testament, Herodotus or Saxo Grammaticus. The interest in history may have experienced a bloom in the Neoclassical age, but this does not make it a Romantic phenomena, and the use of the word Romantic in this context is both confusing and inapt, no matter which authority uses it. HIP is not a romantic religion, where musicians think they achieve the ultimate truth about how music sounded in former ages. Instead it is a working method, which consists in using the things we know about former ages and add the rest as qualified guesses. Yes, it is a relatively modern occurrence in the history of music, that we have started to use historical methods in the interpretation of music - and what then? And with growing familiarity with the music and the period instruments the musicians little by little become able to replace their modern aestetic with a more period-colored aestetic, even if they can't deny the fact, that they live in the 21th century. I do not know why detractors of HIP still claim that it is a modern religion which pretends to know the ultimate truth.

[North Star]

They are not metaphysical but religious, specifically Christian. The difference is huge.

True; I was thinking more about the use of the scordatura tunings throughout the work, changing the instrument's sonorities as well as the action, in accordance with the musical substance and what is represented by the music. I meant to say that it's surely as much a grand creation of a visionary as the Bruckner or Liszt (and Van Gogh & Rothko) cited by Mandryka.

They did, but even if they had started with the Weimar Republic they would have been equally un-historical and downright absurd. I imagine both Johanns rolling on their graves laughing at the idea that their waltzes, polkas and galopps are played by musicians dressed in ultra-formal attire before a silent, reverent and attentive audience. In this case, if one wants HIP one must go to Andre Rieu's concerts which are far closer to what the Strausses themselves did and heard than the pretentious Vienna PO New Year's Concert.

True.

[prémont]

As in the case of many other concepts, say "Baroque", "sonata form" of "the Classical style", the practice underlying them, or its proposal, long predates their being officially codified. The idea of Werktreue can be traced as far back as E.T.A. Hoffmann and was widely shared and proclaimed by many prominent critics and musicians all throughout the 19-th century.

But what did Hoffmann et alii mean with the word Werktreue?

[Florestan]

it's surely as much a grand creation of a visionary as the Bruckner or Liszt (and Van Gogh & Rothko) cited by Mandryka.

For you AD 2018. But how did Biber regard it back then? Did he intend a grand, visionary creation?

The original and only manuscript is stored in the Bavarian State Library in Munich. There is no title page, and the manuscript begins with a dedication to his employer, Archbishop Gandolph. Because of the missing title page, it is uncertain what Biber intended the formal title of the piece to be (Holman 2000) and which instruments he intended for the accompaniment (Manze 2004). Although scholars assume that the sonatas were probably written around the year 1676, there is evidence that they were not all written at the same time or in the same context.

(emphasis mine).

Moreover and perhaps more important:

The 15 Mysteries of the Rosary, practiced in the so-called "Rosary processions" since the 13th century, are meditations on important moments in the life of Christ and the Virgin Mary. During these processions, believers walked around a cycle of fifteen paintings and sculptures that were placed at specific points of a church or another building. In this tradition, at every point a series of prayers was to be recited and related to the beads on the rosary (this is the reason why they are also named the Rosary Sonatas). When they performed this ritual, the faithful also listened to the corresponding biblical passages and commentaries. According to Holman, it is presumed that at the time they would listen to Biber's musical commentary to accompany this ritual of meditation

Ergo, each and every performance which is divorced from the Catholic ritual wich they were intended for, such as the concert hall or a recording, or that at least do not include the corresponding Rosary prayers, is as un-historical and inauthentic as it gets, the use of period instruments notwithstanding. This is actually a case where the composer's intention is crystal clear: Christian music for collective prayer and meditation. Any other use one makes of it is highly historically uninformed. And I have no problem whatsoever with that, as long as it doesn't pretend to be what it is emphatically not, ie historically informed.

[prémont]

I mean the typically Romantic (philosophically Romantic, that is*) ideas that
(1) music is an abstract art whose value and meaning resides in itself and
(2) a piece of music is a self-contained entity which needs no particular performance to reveal its beauty and meaning, in some cases performance being even harmful.

These Romantic ideas are outdated and also wrong and should be considered a result of earlier ages confusion.

Music is an abstract art, but as well as all music was written with performance in mind, so its meaning will not show up until it is performed.

[prémont]

But maybe, just maybe, there's something romantic about Cera's French Suites.

This depends on whether the performer expresses the established affects or rather his own sentiments. It may be hard to tell.

[Mandryka]

True; I was thinking more about the use of the scordatura tunings throughout the work, changing the instrument's sonorities as well as the action, in accordance with the musical substance and what is represented by the music. I meant to say that it's surely as much a grand creation of a visionary as the Bruckner or Liszt (and Van Gogh & Rothko) cited by Mandryka.

.

First I want to say that I'm very uncomfortable about romantic ideas.

Second, exploring violin tuning is like Bach exploring fugue. In romantic terms, it's craft, not art.

Third,  I'd love to read a study of the C16 and C17 keyboard fantasy in these terms.

Fourth, apart from Cera's French Suites,  another thing which may well be romantic is Davidsson's Buxtehude. Basically whenever the performers try to impose a story on purely instrumental music, it's a candidate for romanticism because it's seeing in the music something which goes beyond the music, something  which transcends the music.

[Florestan]

But what did Hoffmann et alii mean with the word Werktreue?

I'm afraid you did not understand me well: they did not use this very word but their views were clearly formulating the concept. Judge for yourself:

[The true artist] 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 the wonderful, enchanting pictures and impressions the composer sealed in his work with magical power

the most inviolable respect must be attached to the composer's work and [...] the performer must never be allowed to distort the former's intentions

I  have already spoken in brief about Liszt's way of playing the compositions of others, and the performance of Beethoven's concerto has only rendered new validation to my view. Beethoven's concerto is  full  of  the  highest genius  ; the player's striving, in my opinion,  must  be  to  penetrate  it  and  bring  it  to  the  ear  in  its  entire  significance  and singularity.  Liszt  certainly  does  not  always  do  so.  To  him,  not  even  a  Beethoven composition  is  anything  other  than  a  racetrack  for  his  own,  wild,  unrestrained genius, which,  chasing  here  and  there,  often  wholly  diverges  from  the  direction  that  the composer indicated

[T]he  supreme  merit  of  the  executive  artist,  the  virtuoso,  is  his  ability  to  reproduce perfectly the composer's thoughts, and that this ability is only possessed by the artist who really and truly assimilated his intentions, completely suppressing any invention of his own. [...] For  what  matters  is  that  we  should  hear  the  work  itself,  ideally reproduced,  and  that  our  attention  to  it  should  in  no  wise  be  distracted  by  the special qualities of the performer

What is all that if not Werktreue in all but name?


.

[North Star]

Any other use one makes of it is highly historically uninformed. And I have no problem whatsoever with that, as long as it doesn't pretend to be what it is emphatically not, ie historically informed.

Just like a complete performance of Bach's B minor Mass.

[Florestan]

These Romantic ideas are outdated and also wrong

Wrong, by all means. Outdated? I'm not so sure. Heck, read this:

Basically whenever the performers try to impose a story on purely instrumental music, it's a candidate for romanticism because it's seeing in the music something which goes beyond the music, something  which transcends the music.

(emphasis mine). How is it any different than "a piece of music is an abstract entity sufficient in itself regardless of any particular performance"? 

Music is an abstract art, but as well as all music was written with performance in mind, so its meaning will not show up until it is performed.

Amen to that but then again: whose meaning?

[Florestan]

Just like a complete performance of Bach's B minor Mass.

Absolutely.

[prémont]

What is all that if not Werktreue in all but name?

Thanks for the quotes. Well - call it Werktreue, but this will also result in confusion, since the word Werktreue to day denotes what I wrote above.

I think Hoffmann et alii had a much too concrete idea about the composers intentions. Not even the composer himself always knows his intentions, which more or less may be subconscious. And a performance is not a registration but an interpretation. Who can say if the composers intensions are obeyed fully? I think Hoffmann's philosophy reflects an idealistic but completely unrealistic way of thinking, which only deserves historical interest to day.

[prémont]

Amen to that but then again: whose meaning?

Usually the meaning the performer expresses  - in the case of Bach: The affect.

[prémont]

Wrong, by all means. Outdated? I'm not so sure. Heck, read this:

Basically whenever the performers try to impose a story on purely instrumental music, it's a candidate for romanticism because it's seeing in the music something which goes beyond the music, something  which transcends the music.

(emphasis mine). How is it any different than "a piece of music is an abstract entity sufficient in itself regardless of any particular performance"? 

Program music may predispose a "story", but otherwise a performer should not impose a story on purely instrumental music. This would be a romantic act (in the usual sense of the word), and as such foreign to Baroque music.

[Florestan]

I think Hoffmann et alii had a much too concrete idea about the composers intentions.

On the contrary, he was absolutely clueless, unless by "the composer's intentions" he meant whatever his own wild fancy conjured up when listening. 

The funny thing with all these utterances --- I could cite numerous other examples, but you could find them in that doctoral dissertation I recommended you to read --- is how abstract and disembodied they are themselves. They wax poetic about abstractions such as "expressivity", "meaning" etc etc etc but not for a second do they offer one single concrete example of what "expressivity" means, or about how it could be reconciled with "faithfully executing the composer's intentions". And in light of their preference for self-contained, auto-referential musical entities, how could the music of Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, Tchaikovsky or even Wagner be considered Romantic at all? That's why I posit that the Romantic philosophy of music is galaxies apart from the Romantic practice of music; now that I think of it, Schoenberg or Stravinsky were by far truer Romantics (in the philosophical sense) than all the former taken together.

Not even the composer himself always knows his intentions, which more or less may be subconscious. And a performance is not a registration but an interpretation. Who can say if the composers intensions are obeyed fully?

Correct. That's why I asked earlier "Whose meaning?" Imho, the meaning of a piece of music is to be found at the point of intersection of three circles: the composer's meaning, which may or may not be discernible; the performer's, which is made discernible by the performance itself; and the listener's, who is free to make whatever he wish of the former two. There is no single, defintive meaning of a work, much less one that lies in the score like a gem in a mine waiting to be unearthed --- or better said for any given piece of music there are as much meanings as there are performers and listeners, and each one of them should be completely free to express or create it. As long as the performer has artistic integrity, an aesthetically coherent vision and is technically secure, and as long as the listener enjoys the performance, the end result is meaningful and moreover it is authentic, regardless of what instruments are used or what performance practice is employed.

If we can agree on this, my job here is done.

[Florestan]

Program music may predispose a "story", but otherwise a performer should not impose a story on purely instrumental music. This would be a romantic act (in the usual sense of the word), and as such foreign to Baroque music.

What do you mean by imposing a story on purely instrumental music? Do you have a specific example to offer? I mean, can you cite a performance that does just that and, more important, what exactly the story is?

Same question for Mandryka: please tell us exactly what the story is that Cera imposed on Bach or Davidssohn on Buxtehude.

a performer should not

This is wrong. Very wrong. This is actually what got on my nerves in the first place. 

On the contrary, a performer should have the most complete freedom to perform as he sees fit --- and we as listeners should have the most complete freedom to accept or reject the end result and to prefer this performance over that one.

This might actually be the only point over which we seem to be in irreconcilable disagreement.