The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[prémont]

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.

I am not pleased with your use of the word "authentic", which is too absolutist to me, but I can agree on the rest.

[Elgarian Redux]

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.

* I cannot stress hardly enough this qualification, because actually the practice of Romantic music was quite at odds with how the Romantic philosophers viewed music, and people familiar with the former but not with the latter might get puzzled by my posts.

Yes, that explains some of my own puzzlement. The difference between my knowledge of the history of philosophy of music, and zero, would be hard to determine. That doesn't stop me thinking, however: and it will be no surprise to you when I say that the idea of music as a self-contained abstract entity is one that I can't summon any sustainable interest in.

Meanwhile ... I have just eaten my lunch, accompanied by a HIP recording of Mozart violin sonatas playing very pleasantly in the background, to which I was paying little but occasional attention. Have I rediscovered the skill of Historically Authentic Listening?

[Florestan]

it will be no surprise to you when I say that the idea of music as a self-contained abstract entity is one that I can't summon any sustainable interest in.

And it will likewise be no surprise to you when I say that I fully share this sentiment.

Meanwhile ... I have just eaten my lunch, accompanied by a HIP recording of Mozart violin sonatas playing very pleasantly in the background, to which I was paying little but occasional attention. Have I rediscovered the skill of Historically Authentic Listening?

In all probability yes. 

[Mandryka]

For Cera, I don't have his essay in the booklet any more, but he sees them as a journey from trouble through prayer to salvation. Egarr says something similar about the English suites, which he sees as a cycle representing a journey to a tertible, dark place. Maybe someone who has the booklet could find the exact words.

For Davidsson, if you look at his essays on Buxtehude on the Gothic website you'll find what I was thinking of - with my phone it's a bit of a fiddle to find you the link.

[Florestan]

I am not pleased with your use of the word "authentic", which is too absolutist to me, but I can agree on the rest.

Merriam-Webster's definition #3 of authentic: true to one's own personality, spirit, or character.

That's exactly what I meant by it.

[Florestan]

For Cera, I don't have his essay in the booklet any more, but he sees them as a journey from trouble through prayer to salvation. Egarr says something similar about the English suites, which he sees as a cycle representing a journey to a tertible, dark place. Maybe someone who has the booklet could find the exact words.

For Davidsson, if you look at his essays on Buxtehude on the Gothic website you'll find what I was thinking of - with my phone it's a bit of a fiddle to find you the link.

And did you really hear all that while listening?

Conversely: had you not read the booklets beforehand, would you have described the performances in those terms?

Your approach to music seems to be extremely intellectualized, reading the essays about the performance being as important, if not actually more, than the performance itself. Why can't you just listen, and like or dislike it on the basis of your own, personal reaction to the music-making, not because of what the performer writes? 

[Elgarian Redux]

In all probability yes. 

Well how about that! I thought it was a lunchtime devoid of achievement, and yet I actually learned a new skill!

[Florestan]

Well how about that! I thought it was a lunchtime devoid of achievement, and yet I actually learned a new skill!

Listening attentively is a trifle, any fool can do that. Listening unattentively is an art for the happy few. 

[Mahlerian]

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.

No. 1 has a far longer history than you imply.  In the middle ages, music was thought to be analogous to a working out of the properties of the universe, and treatises on the art of composition have been written since then, talking about the principles of forming a musical piece in the abstract.

If the composers of the renaissance had thought of music primarily in concrete terms, they would not have been so ready to transfer the abstract part of the music from voices to instruments, or a sacred text to a secular one, as was done very regularly.  It shows that they thought of the musical aspects of their compositions as separable from specific performers or even types of performers.  This is abstract thinking.


If by No. 2 you refer to the idea that one can read through a score to get at the meaning of the music, then surely this is something any professional musician can and should be able to do.  Of course works of music can exist meaningfully apart from any specific performance, as otherwise the idea of a piece of music turns into nonsense.

Put more plainly, if you refuse to allow the existence of a piece of music outside of performance, then Beethoven's Fifth Symphony ceases to exist as long as no one is listening to it being performed.  This is much rarer now, but in the 19th century, it would have gone in and out of existing on a rather regular basis.

[Mandryka]

And did you really hear all that while listening?

Conversely: had you not read the booklets beforehand, would you have described the performances in those terms?

Your approach to music seems to be extremely intellectualized, reading the essays about the performance being as important, if not actually more, than the performance itself. Why can't you just listen, and like or dislike it on the basis of your own, personal reaction to the music-making, not because of what the performer writes? 

I wasn't talking about what I like or not,  I was talking about what the performer is doing with the music and why.

What I'm  suggesting  is that these three performers  have found a transcendent aspect to the instrumental music, just like some museum curators find an aspect to a Rothko which goes beyond an arrangement of pigment on a canvas. And that this maybe makes their interpretations in some way Romantic.

[Florestan]

No. 1 has a far longer history than you imply.  In the middle ages, music was thought to be analogous to a working out of the properties of the universe, and treatises on the art of composition have been written since then, talking about the principles of forming a musical piece in the abstract.

If the composers of the renaissance had thought of music primarily in concrete terms, they would not have been so ready to transfer the abstract part of the music from voices to instruments, or a sacred text to a secular one, as was done very regularly.  It shows that they thought of the musical aspects of their compositions as separable from specific performers or even types of performers.  This is abstract thinking.

Cantor vs musicus. 

If by No. 2 you refer to the idea that one can read through a score to get at the meaning of the music, then surely this is something any professional musician can and should be able to do.  Of course works of music can exist meaningfully apart from any specific performance, as otherwise the idea of a piece of music turns into nonsense.

Put more plainly, if you refuse to allow the existence of a piece of music outside of performance, then Beethoven's Fifth Symphony ceases to exist as long as no one is listening to it being performed.  This is much rarer now, but in the 19th century, it would have gone in and out of existing on a rather regular basis.

Frankly, I have no idea where "a piece of music" can be said to exist.

Suppose all existing scores and recordings of Beethoven's Fifth are destroyed. Does it mean the Fifth is destroyed as well?

Asked about his Piano Sonata No. 2, Enescu replied "It's all here in my head, waiting to be put to paper". It was never put to paper. Does it mean it did not exist?

There are lots of works (especially Baroque operas) known to have been performed but whose scores are now lost. If they will never be found again, does it mean the works ceased to exist?

[Florestan]

I wasn't talking about what I like or not,  I was talking about what the performer is doing with the music and why.

What I'm  suggesting  is that these three performers  have found a transcendent aspect to the instrumental music, just like some museum curators find an aspect to a Rothko which goes beyond an arrangement of pigment on a canvas. And that this maybe makes their interpretations in some way Romantic.

The ultimate test of any performance is whether it is enjoyed or not. Do you like their interpretations? I mean, what you hear, not what you read.

[Mahlerian]

Cantor vs musicus. 

By which you mean...?

Frankly, I have no idea where "a piece of music" can be said to exist.

It's not a physical object.  It's something like the base of all things relating to a given work, physical and non-physical.

Suppose all existing scores and recordings of Beethoven's Fifth are destroyed. Does it mean the Fifth is destroyed as well?

Of course not.  The Fifth Symphony is not a physical object.  Of course its contents would then pass out of historical memory, but it still has reality as being "the work that was Beethoven's C minor Symphony," and remains unchanged in all of its aspects.

Asked about his Piano Sonata No. 2, Enescu replied "It's all here in my head, waiting to be put to paper". It was never put to paper. Does it mean it did not exist?

Nope; the ideas existed (assuming that Enescu was reporting accurately) but they were never given final form.  One doesn't need a score for a musical work, but it does need to be shaped and molded, to have its relationships worked out, whether on paper, through improvisation, or at the computer.

There are lots of works (especially Baroque operas) known to have been performed but whose scores are now lost. If they will never be found again, does it mean the works ceased to exist?

Of course not.  See above with Beethoven's Fifth.

Why do you assume I equate score and work?  The work can exist without a score, but (when there is a score) the score allows us to approach the work.

[Elgarian Redux]

Listening attentively is a trifle, any fool can do that. Listening unattentively is an art for the happy few. 

My favourite GMG quote of the week.

[Florestan]

By which you mean...?

By which I mean the medieval distinction between someone whose business is practical music (cantor) and someone who occupies himelf with music as an abstract topic, classified with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy as Quadrivium (musicus).

The Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion. Arithmetic, then, studies quantities as such, music the relations between quantities, geometry magnitude at rest, spherics [astronomy] magnitude inherently moving

You are a composer yourself, do you consider yourself a cantor or a musicus?

One doesn't need a score for a musical work, but it does need to be shaped and molded, to have its relationships worked out, whether on paper, through improvisation, or at the computer.

Enescu claimed he had the complete, final form of the sonata in his head and had only to write it down. Assuming he was right, did the work exist?

[Mahlerian]

By which I mean the medieval distinction between someone whose business is practical music (cantor) and someone who occupies himelf with music as an abstract topic, classified with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy as Quadrivium (musicus).

You are a composer yourself, do you consider yourself a cantor or a musicus?

Both, but with an emphasis on the former.  I perform music (mostly for myself) and I compose, both of which are with "practical music," and, like you, I discuss the nature of music;  I wrote my undergraduate final paper in philosophy on the nature and existence of musical works.

Several prominent composers throughout history have concerned themselves both with practical music and with music theory, from Zarlino to Rameau to Fux to Schoenberg.  I don't think there's any real contradiction between those two roles, though they are different.

But at any rate, haven't you undermined your own point about thinking of music in the abstract originating in a Romantic worldview?

Enescu claimed he had the complete, final form of the sonata in his head and had only to write it down. Assuming he was right, did the work exist?

I already said that it did and does (as a work which was never instantiated in either score or performance).

[Florestan]

haven't you undermined your own point about thinking of music in the abstract originating in a Romantic worldview?

"If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing." ― Miguel de Unamuno   

I already said that it did and does (as a work which was never instantiated in either score or performance).

What's your opinion on the relationship between the score, the performance and the work?  Is a performance which strictly adheres to the score more faithful to the work than one which take liberties with the score?

[Mahlerian]

What's your opinion on the relationship between the score, the performance and the work?  Is a performance which strictly adheres to the score more faithful to the work than one which take liberties with the score?

It would depend on the accuracy of the score.  Also, I think that the strict adherence/interpretation dichotomy is a false one.*  One can look at a score and follow it as strictly as possible to the best of one's ability, and it will still be an interpretation with unique characteristics.  Different scores also allow different amounts of leeway.

I don't believe in the idea of there being a single perfect interpretation for a given score to which all performances should aspire.  I think that all interpretations have some relationship to the work, and one can interpret it quite differently while responding directly to it in every single aspect.


* When people say "strict literalism," they usually mean "an interpretation that sounds mechanical" when they mean it negatively and "an interpretation that sounds more like my idea of what the music should sound like" when they mean it positively.  Neither concept is especially useful to me, given that I don't think a literal interpretation necessitates a certain sound.

[prémont]

Merriam-Webster's definition #3 of authentic: true to one's own personality, spirit, or character.

That's exactly what I meant by it.

This is not the usual meaning of the word, it is indeed rather special.

Using words in special meanings invites to misunderstandings.

[Florestan]

This is not the usual meaning of the word, it is indeed rather special.

Using words in special meanings invites to misunderstandings.

I don't know about Danish but in Romanian authentic is frequently used with that "special" meaning and needs no further qualifications in order to be understood as such.