The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[M forever]

There is no easy way to develop and actually no real need for such terms. "On modern instruments" or "on historical instruments" is pretty much the only parameter which can be more or less easily labeled. When it comes to the actual performance practice and playing, most people don't have the slightest clue what that actually is anyway, which parameters are derived from the study of historical performance practices, playing techniques, and esthetics, which parameters come from other performance styles etc. That is enormously complex. Contrary to what you and a lot of people think, fast tempi and hard timpani sticks isn't what period performance is all about. It's much more complex than that. Much, much more complex.

[Bunny]

I know that there is a good deal of complexity to historically informed performance whether on historic or modern instruments, but I also know that performance on modern instruments, no matter how informed by historic practice, sounds differently from performance on historic instruments.  It doesn't take a genius to hear the differences, even if intelligent musical performance really doesn't depend on the instruments so much as the intelligence of the musicians.  However, the sound of the music is what really is important in the end and modern instruments sound very differently from period instruments and no matter how great the intelligence of the modern instrument musician, he is not going to make that modern instrument sound like the historic one.  There is no way a piano will ever sound like a harpsichord, and while I love Peter Serkin's recordings of the Goldberg Variations, they are no substitute for the work of Rousset or Hantaï.  Similarly, there is no way that a steel string violin will sound like a gut string violin, and an unmodified Stradivarius sounds differently from a modified Strad, which will also sound diffferently from a Guarneri or a modern violin. The unique sound of leather skins on timpani and hard sticks may bore you, but I find their sound exhilarating, especially when the performance is a good one.  (BTW, I don't really understand why you think liking period tympani is so ridiculous when you admit to a preference for the sounds of the historic winds and brass instruments which make the WP sound so unique.)

Yes, call me a simpleton (or worse in your own inimitably harsh style), but for me music is as much a sensual experience as an intellectual one.  Poor musical performance exists for modern instruments as well as for historic instruments and while I may not be adept at verbally describing a bad performance or a great one, I know one when I hear one.  So, all things being equal, I'll make no apologies for loving the sound of the period instrument orchestra.  Btw, I'd love to hear Mahler performed on gut strings with the portamenti, and all the other stylistic mannerisms popular in Mahler's lifetime that are no longer used in performance -- even when historically informed.  I always wonder how differently Mahler's orchestra sounded from the orchestras that perform his music nowadays.  I know that it had to sound differently, not withstanding the interpretive differences between conductors such as Claudio and Abbado.

[Lilas Pastia]

I know that there is a good deal of complexity to historically informed performance whether on historic or modern instruments, but I also know that performance on modern instruments, no matter how informed by historic practice, sounds differently from performance on historic instruments.  It doesn't take a genius to hear the differences, even if intelligent musical performance really doesn't depend on the instruments so much as the intelligence of the musicians.  However, the sound of the music is what really is important in the end and modern instruments sound very differently from period instruments and no matter how great the intelligence of the modern instrument musician, he is not going to make that modern instrument sound like the historic one.  There is no way a piano will ever sound like a harpsichord, and while I love Peter Serkin's recordings of the Goldberg Variations, they are no substitute for the work of Rousset or Hantaï.  Similarly, there is no way that a steel string violin will sound like a gut string violin, and an unmodified Stradivarius sounds differently from a modified Strad, which will also sound diffferently from a Guarneri or a modern violin. The unique sound of leather skins on timpani and hard sticks may bore you, but I find their sound exhilarating, especially when the performance is a good one.  (BTW, I don't really understand why you think liking period tympani is so ridiculous when you admit to a preference for the sounds of the historic winds and brass instruments which make the WP sound so unique.)

Yes, call me a simpleton (or worse in your own inimitably harsh style), but for me music is as much a sensual experience as an intellectual one.  Poor musical performance exists for modern instruments as well as for historic instruments and while I may not be adept at verbally describing a bad performance or a great one, I know one when I hear one.  So, all things being equal, I'll make no apologies for loving the sound of the period instrument orchestra.  Btw, I'd love to hear Mahler performed on gut strings with the portamenti, and all the other stylistic mannerisms popular in Mahler's lifetime that are no longer used in performance -- even when historically informed.  I always wonder how differently Mahler's orchestra sounded from the orchestras that perform his music nowadays.  I know that it had to sound differently, not withstanding the interpretive differences between conductors such as Claudio and Abbado.

HIP is still a concept that is in the infancy of its development. As it progresses it will go back to and move away, from current or past conceptions. It's still very much inventing itself. Personally I don't think it has much to teach us in terms of late-classical and early romantic works (say, 1790-1850). What's really important is to find a style that spurs one to explore the repertoire in question. I have heard quite a few HIP CPE Bach recordings, and I'm convinced they have pretty much cornered the style as I understand it. Sonatas by Pletnev or orchestral works by Leppard and others are interesting inasmuch as they cover repertory not already trodded by the likes of Spanyi or Charivari agréable. As a matter of fact, comparing the cello concertos by Meneses ("modern") and Suzuki ("HIP") was quite instructive. I liked them both, as they offered different satisfactions to the mind and taste.

[Bunny]

If you really want to find an HIP argument, today the NYTimes has reported that Roger Norrington wants to conduct Elgar's anthem Land of Hope and Glory without vibrato at the end of the BBC Proms.  It's set off quite a controversy in Olde England.  Apparently Norrington feels that Elgar wrote the anthem in a period when there was more of what he calls "pure tone" play than the vibrato that has become so ubiquitous.  Here's a link to the article.



Left, Edward Elgar; right, Roger Norrington, who has upset some Britons by saying he may conduct Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" March without vibrato for the Last Night of the Proms.

[Don]

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? 

It's all in the listening.  As far as titles go, I prefer to use "period instrument" instead of HIP which is becoming too generic a term.

[Gurn Blanston]

It's all in the listening.  As far as titles go, I prefer to use "period instrument" instead of HIP which is becoming too generic a term.

Me too, although I frequently use HIP because it is faster to type...

[jochanaan]

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?...

Oh, the sounds of the instruments are nothing alike.  Even without the pitch difference I hear, when I turn on the radio in the middle of something I can tell at once whether it's period or modern instruments; the strings are far more slender-sounding and the winds mellower in period-instrument ensembles.

[Lilas Pastia]

If you really want to find an HIP argument, today the NYTimes has reported that Roger Norrington wants to conduct Elgar's anthem Land of Hope and Glory without vibrato at the end of the BBC Proms.  It's set off quite a controversy in Olde England.  Apparently Norrington feels that Elgar wrote the anthem in a period when there was more of what he calls "pure tone" play than the vibrato that has become so ubiquitous.  Here's a link to the article.



Left, Edward Elgar; right, Roger Norrington, who has upset some Britons by saying he may conduct Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" March without vibrato for the Last Night of the Proms.

Miscreant false representation, as usual from Norrington. Land of Hope and Glory is the portion of Elgar's Coronation Ode that the composer adapted from the trio of his P&C March # 1. It was first performed in 1902 by Dame Clara Butt, of famous boomy voice and ample vibrato reputation ("On a clear day you could have heard her across the English Channel" - quote by Thomas Beecham). Since Elgar wrote  his Sea Pictures for her, do we also expect that great song cycle to be sung without vibrato? I mean, it's the same composer, the same melody, and he wrote other stuff for her, so he miust have loved her way of singing, vibrato and all. Norrington is a fraud.

[Bunny]

Don't ask me about this!  I don't have the vaguest idea whether Norrington is onto something or off in cloud cuckoo land.  I just find the whole business a bit of a hoot. 

[Bunny]

Oh, the sounds of the instruments are nothing alike.  Even without the pitch difference I hear, when I turn on the radio in the middle of something I can tell at once whether it's period or modern instruments; the strings are far more slender-sounding and the winds mellower in period-instrument ensembles.

Of course the instruments sound differently!  That's why I think that divorcing HIP from period instrument performance is like translating Shakespeare into modern English -- it might make the play more understandable to a modern audience, but it's death to the poetry.

[M forever]

Bull. That comparison doesn't work at all. If you think about it, it's actually the exact other way around when it comes to music.

Norrington is a fraud.

Norrington has some strange ideas, or let's say, he sometimes comes up with ideas that are more concept ideas and he has a tendency to get a little tunnel-visioned about his idées fixes (is that how you say it in plural)? But he does have a solid musical craftsmanship background, and some of the things he does are very well done, however "right" or "wrong" some of his ideas may be. What he does (and says!!!) usually should be taken with a few grains of salt, but I would definitely not go as far as calling him a fraud. That is unfair.

[Lilas Pastia]

In this particular instance it's either a fraud or a provocation. How about a vibratoless Kindertotenlieder, Pelléas et Mélisande or Shéhérazade, La Mer, La Valse or Don juan, works that are more or less contemporaries to the Elgar works in question... If Norrington wants to push the envelope that far, he has to be prepared for some criticism. I'm quite sure he actually enjoys the polemic.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Of course the instruments sound differently!  That's why I think that divorcing HIP from period instrument performance is like translating Shakespeare into modern English -- it might make the play more understandable to a modern audience, but it's death to the poetry.

Linguistically speaking, Shakespeare is written in modern English. But if one were to perform Shakespeare in a "HIP" manner, it might include such things as using boys for the female parts, speaking the verse in an Elizabethan accent (which supposedly is closest to the Appalachian accent of the American southeast today), and performing the plays in a re-construction of Shakespeare's theater such as is found in London's new Globe or the John Crawford Adams Playhouse at Hofstra University in New York. But some of these are external matters - although it adds a dimension of irony in a play like As You Like It for a boy to be playing a girl who pretends to be a boy who at one points playacts the part of a girl (as opposed to only having a female actor who plays a girl who pretends to be a boy who at one points playacts the part of a girl) - and I wonder how much they add to our appreciation of Shakespeare.

A more significantly HIP approach to Shakespeare would be more concerned with internals, such as (for example) Elizabethan attitudes towards ghosts, revenge, and regicide, the study of which has produced some valuable reinterpretations of Hamlet that have called into question older readings of the play as a story about procrastination or a "man who could not make up his mind," as we were informed in the Olivier movie of 1940. I'm thinking of books like Eleanor Prosser's "Hamlet and Revenge," whose conclusions seem to me unsatisfactory, and the most convincing HIP reading of the play I've encountered, Bernard Grebanier's "The Heart of Hamlet."

To bring this back to music, I'm wondering if a distinction can or should be made between external HIP (period instruments, hard timpani sticks, no vibrato) and more internal factors such as phrasing, ornamentation, and aspects of notation whose meaning has changed between ealier times and our own. But can a clear distinction between external and internal factors be made, and how do we decide what aspect of HIP falls into which camp?

[M forever]

Thanks for this post. These are very good comparisons. Man, finally someone gets it!

At this point, I am so tired of the discussion and how little most people understand about this subject though, that I don't know yet if I will continue to participate it or drop out. If I don't drop out, I will come back to some of your points there.

[jochanaan]

If you really want to find an HIP argument, today the NYTimes has reported that Roger Norrington wants to conduct Elgar's anthem Land of Hope and Glory without vibrato at the end of the BBC Proms.  It's set off quite a controversy in Olde England.  Apparently Norrington feels that Elgar wrote the anthem in a period when there was more of what he calls "pure tone" play than the vibrato that has become so ubiquitous. 

Miscreant false representation, as usual from Norrington...

I wonder.  As you say, singers from that time used vibrato; yet in many old (1920s-1930s) recordings of European orchestras, none of the wind players use any vibrato, not even the flutes.  As late as the 1950s, oboist Marcel Tabuteau of the Philadelphia Orchestra used virtually no vibrato.  And Elgar died in 1934...

[M forever]

As you say, singers from that time used vibrato

Lilas P didn't say that. Why do you put words in his mouth?

[eyeresist]

Miscreant false representation, as usual from Norrington. Land of Hope and Glory is the portion of Elgar's Coronation Ode that the composer adapted from the trio of his P&C March # 1. It was first performed in 1902 by Dame Clara Butt, of famous boomy voice and ample vibrato reputation ("On a clear day you could have heard her across the English Channel" - quote by Thomas Beecham). Since Elgar wrote  his Sea Pictures for her, do we also expect that great song cycle to be sung without vibrato? I mean, it's the same composer, the same melody, and he wrote other stuff for her, so he miust have loved her way of singing, vibrato and all. Norrington is a fraud.

Speaking of false representation - Norrington isn't saying Hope & Glory should be sung without vibrato (impossible for most people), he's talking about string tone.
This article has some hilarious quotes, particularly "I am fed up with these politically correct liberals in the establishment doing all they can to denigrate and undermine British and English cultural icons." 

Admittedly Elgar dedicated his violin concerto to Kreisler, who became infamous for his constant vibrato, but my own feeling is that vibrato is too often overdone, and I welcome a move in the other direction. I'd like to hear more 19th and 20th century music done "pure", just for a different perspective. It would certainly suit Shostakovich, and could be an improvement for the Sibelius concerto.

Hope & Glory is a piece in which lack of string vibrato would hardly be noticable anyway, particularly with all the hullabulloo of the Prommers to contend with. I think "storm in a teacup" will be the final verdict.

How about a vibratoless Kindertotenlieder, Pelléas et Mélisande or Shéhérazade, La Mer, La Valse or Don juan

Yes please! 

[jochanaan]

Lilas P didn't say that. Why do you put words in his mouth?

Well, he said that ONE famous singer used vibrato, so I made what I thought was a justified assumption.  Besides, I've heard singers' old recordings too.

But speaking of vibrato, I suspect the question will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.  Mozart mentions vibrato in at least one of his letters, indicating that singers, woodwind and string players all used it, although he railed against the artificial-sounding vibrato of some singers.  (Sound like modern times? )  Yet there are all those old orchestral recordings with vibratoless wind players...

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, he said that ONE famous singer used vibrato, so I made what I thought was a justified assumption.  Besides, I've heard singers' old recordings too.

But speaking of vibrato, I suspect the question will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.  Mozart mentions vibrato in at least one of his letters, indicating that singers, woodwind and string players all used it, although he railed against the artificial-sounding vibrato of some singers.  (Sound like modern times? )  Yet there are all those old orchestral recordings with vibratoless wind players...

This is one of the issues that the HIP movement raised (and where they may have screwed up a bit by going overboard). Mozart's letter to his father does not say (as is frequently alleged) that singers and fiddlers (specifically) shouldn't use vibrato at all, what he said is that they should use it in a tasteful manner that serves the music. The same goes for his statements about rubato. He didn't use that word, he called it "stealing time", but he said that it is only a right hand thing (for keyboardists), the left hand has to keep steady as a rock on the right tempo for it to be effective. This is greatly different from the taken-away idea that keyboardist shouldn't use rubato in Classical Era works.

[Don]

I'm not particuarly concerned with the historical perspective of using vibrato.  Over time, I've come to dislike greatly its use for baroque and classical era music.