The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, I think that I would like your historical program.  My attention span has been short of late when it comes to music.

Programmes can always be useful in keeping your interest up. Like the concert recreation I am listening to right now. I hate when my attention wanders and I can't even remember what I listened to...



----------------
Now playing:

April 2, 1800 - Alfred Brendel - Bia 175 WoO 73 Variations (10) in Bb on 'La Stessa, le Stessissima' from "Falstaff" by Salieri

[Que]

So, we end up with the question what can or cannot be achieved with HIP!
I've moved the discussion to the appropriate thread...

Let's take the case of the Baroque. Most (if not all) composers would be astonished in the highest degree to see that:

1. Their music is performed in large concert halls where audience sits still and stiff.

The large hall is actually a reason pro HIP. Talking during a musical performance doesn't make it more HIP, since it bears no relevance on the music as such but just on the way it is experienced - not the same thing, we'll return to that. Besides, I assume that the audience listening to Bach's cantatas was actually rather silent.

2. Their music is performed exactly as written in scores.

Certainly in the Baroque it was custom to take some liberties with the score, for instance to add embellishments, and please note that this also done in HIP performances today! So your statement is actually not true. The problem with non-HIP performances is that they take the wrong kind of liberties with the score: out of necessity, because they do not use the right instruments, or out of ignorance, because they do not know how certain elements in the score were supposed to be interpreted.

3. Their music is regarded as something more than either entertaining or instructing.

I don't see your point. Do you think that Bach didn't enjoy the keyboard music he wrote for instruction purposes? I think he did, and intended others to do so. And even if not, that doesn't seem an obstacle to do so anyway. And what is the difference between "entertainment" and enjoyment? Again, the way the music is regarded by modern audiences is not relevant for the way the music should be performed, according to the knowledge of the historical practises.

4. Their manuscripts have been searched for and catalogued.

Don't see the relevance of this either. Does the fact that research is conducted on historical musical practises in any way diminish the relevance of the results of those efforts?

B. Bach's cantatas were composed because his job description was to provide them for the divine service and he obliged dutifully. He never ever thought that the 19th or 20th century aesthetic ideas will take them out of their context and perform them to a non-Lutheran, non-worshipping audience assembled for the sake of the music itself.

It's no use enjoying Bach cantatas in HIP because we are no 18th century Lutherans?

The ideas of music as more than a tool for entertaining or instructing the upper classes, of dedicated concert halls, of orchestras performing for a large, socially mixed audience, of performers making careers by and for themselves --- that is, the musical world in which we breathe today --- were completely alien until the rise of Romanticism. As Thomas Mann (through Adrian Leverkuhn's mouth) very aptly put it, the main achievement of Romanticism is that it took music out of its municipal fanfare state and integrated it in the general intellectual circuit of the time. If we, middle-class as we are, go today to Baroque music concertos offered in concert halls by professional ensembles is not because, but in spite, of the Baroque aesthetics and practice. Actually, we act in the most Romantic manner.

Again, your are confusing the music as such, and the social circumstances and the way in which it was enjoyed.

HIP performance? Perfect, no problem with that. But performance is not enough, if you really want to experience Baroque music in its period context. You also need "HIP" mentality --- and that is lost forever.

We don not need a "HIP mentality", nor does the fact we do not live in the 17th, 18th 19th or 20th century diminish the value of a HIP approach. What you are basically saying is: it is necessary and inevitable to adapt musical performances to the way that music is generally perceived today. This is in fact a circular argument: because the way it is perceived is influenced by the way it is performed.
My argument would be: maybe it is worthwhile for presentday listeners to make an effort to appreciate the music as it was intended to be performed. Why? Because in that way the music has so much more to tell. For me personally is was no big effort at all - the value of HIP was immediately apparent.

As for Mozart, I too think that he would have relished massive forces and grand pianos and wouldn't have stuck to tiny princely Kappellen or fortepianos and harpsichords.

This is not to say that HIP is useless, God forbid! But the problem has many facets. For instance: is Beethoven, who constantly complained about the poor quality of the fortepianos and proclaimed that his music is for the future, really serviced by performing his music HIP?

That's an "Golden Oldie". I believe that any music is inextricably linked to the musical tradition it was written in and the means of performance at hand. In other words: if Mozart or Beethoven would have been familiar with the instruments and orchestras of today, they would have written very different music. So it's no use to treat the music they actually did write, as music they could have written.. if, and if, and if only... That would be second guessing both the composer's intentions and historical circumstances.

Q

[George]

That's an "Golden Oldy". I believe that any music is inextricably linked to the musical tradition it was written in and the means of performance at hand. In other words: if Mozart or Beethoven would have been familiar with the instruments and orchestras of today, they would have written very different music. So it's no use to treat the music they actually did write, as music they could have written.. if, and if, and if only... That would be second guessing both the composer's intentions and historical circumstances.
Q

What about if the composer sees the increasing advances (as Beethoven did) and writes music knowing that the piano's will be improved enough to play the music he writes? I think at least in Beethoven's case (being deaf and all) he envisions music in his head that could be played on pianos that did not have the restrictions of his day.

[FideLeo]

What about if the composer sees the increasing advances (as Beethoven did) and writes music knowing that the piano's will be improved enough to play the music he writes? I think at least in Beethoven's case (being deaf and all) he envisions music in his head that could be played on pianos that did not have the restrictions of his day.

Paul Komen (re: essay in the booklet accompanying his recording of Diabelli Variations) found that Beethoven was dissatisfied with standards of string playing in his days as well (witness the demands imposed by his own late quartets).  So it may well been an extreme perfectionism rather than anything specific about fortepianos of his day that contributed to B's unhappiness as such.

[(poco) Sforzando]

What about if the composer sees the increasing advances (as Beethoven did) and writes music knowing that the piano's will be improved enough to play the music he writes? I think at least in Beethoven's case (being deaf and all) he envisions music in his head that could be played on pianos that did not have the restrictions of his day.

"What do I care about his puny fiddle when the spirit moves me?" growled Ludwig.

He was indeed famous for breaking strings on his fortepianos, and when the instrument's range was expanded at the time of his late sonatas, he took immediate advantage of the improvement - to the point where in the manuscript of op. 101, he triumphantly wrote "Low E!" to call attention to that new note.

But Beethoven did not only stretch the capabilities of his instruments, he also stretched the capabilities of his performers. Works like the Great Fugue and the Hammerklavier went far beyond the technical demands of any music preceding, and if anything our technical powerhouses of today, for whom Liszt and Messiaen are walks in the park, run the risk of making late Beethoven sound too easy.

[eyeresist]

I'm not hugely familar with HIP as I mostly listen in the Romantic era, but I have a few things including Kuijken conducting Haydn, which is very good. Norrington's LCP Beethoven symphonies seem to me to be recorded in rather "hard" sound, which reduces enjoyment for me. I don't know if other LCP recordings have the same problem.

I'd really like to hear Romantic violin concertos played in a more HIP style, that is, without that annoying constant vibrato, but that doesn't seem to be an option as yet.

[ChamberNut]

I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

[Harry]

Norrington's LCP Beethoven symphonies seem to me to be recorded in rather "hard" sound, which reduces enjoyment for me. I don't know if other LCP recordings have the same problem.

I think, that would be a problem with your equipment or acoustics in your listening area, for the sound is certainly very good of these recordings, being recorded by EMI veterans.

[Harry]

I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

Not always Ray, but some bands always play on period instruments.
So its a question of experience really, and you soon enough pick that up.

[springrite]

I listen to lots of HIP recordings. All the late 20th century music recordings I have are Historically Informed Performances using instruments of the period.

[FideLeo]

I listen to lots of HIP recordings. All the late 20th century music recordings I have are Historically Informed Performances using instruments of the period.

Plus all the performers are historical as well. 

[springrite]

Plus all the performers are historical as well. 

Exactly! And many of the performers know the composer personally, with many of the recording sessions or rehearsals advised by the composer. Can't get more historical than that!

[Que]

I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

Good question, unfortunately it's difficult to know if you're not familiar with the performers.
Sometimes there is some kind of indication like" "on period instruments". Other than that: it's mostly mentioned in reviews and once you get familiar with performers in the HIP field, things get easier to identify.
Recordings of Medieval & Renaissance music are 100% HIP and nowadays also the vast majority of Baroque music, after that there is a mix of HIP & non-HIP.

And - of course - you can always pop the question on this forum! 

Some relevant threads:
HIP Mozart
HIP Beethoven
Beethoven Symphonies HIP
HIP Romantics

Q

PS And let's get things straight: the terms HIP and contemporary are mutually exclusive. HIP can per definition only apply to non-contemporary music.

[Harry]

I listen to lots of HIP recordings. All the late 20th century music recordings I have are Historically Informed Performances using instruments of the period.

That was my second big laugh today, and its still resounding around my house!

[FideLeo]

Can't get more historical than that!

Although one has clearly left out the "informed" bit there....

[FideLeo]

I apologize if the question was already asked before, but.....:

How do you tell if a recording is 'HIP'?  Does it actually say it on the CD label?

Ask the musicians themselves.  Count 'em in if they insist that their performances are historically informed. 

[Que]

Bump, and please go ahead...

Q

Question for the HIPpies:

Is it really 'HIP' if it's all recorded on state-of-the-art 21st century technology??  Shouldn't it be recorded the old-fashioned way?

[Wendell_E]

Bump, and please go ahead...

Q

Quote from: ChamberNut on June 03, 2008, 11:34:13 AM

Question for the HIPpies:

Is it really 'HIP' if it's all recorded on state-of-the-art 21st century technology??  Shouldn't it be recorded the old-fashioned way?

Well, to be strictly 'HIP', you shouldn't record it at all.  Live only!

[mn dave]

Well, to be strictly 'Hip', you shouldn't record it at all.  Live only!

Exactly. With powdered wigs and weird stockings!

[Bunny]

No.  HIP doesn't even necessarily imply use of period instruments.

If HIP doesn't imply the use of period instruments, then how does one distinguish between period instrument performance and modern performance styles that have been influenced by historic scholarship?  Clearly styles of performance of music with a modern orchestra is something that is constantly evolving, and is thus more contemporary than historic. 

Obviously, the terminology needs to be adjusted to these factors.  HIP should stand only for Historic Instrument Performance while another term for the contemporary style of performance which breaks from the earlier Romantically influenced style needs a new moniker.  If we continue to call it HIP for Historically Informed Performance we only land up in arguments which are unnecessary.  How about calling Modern Orchestra/Instrument Historically Informed Performance something like Mo-HIP?  That gives us clarity about exactly what is being discussed, and respects both performance styles.