The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Gurn Blanston]

   
But  scholarship  and  the  use  of "the  correct  instruments"  do  not  guanatee  anything  in  themselves.  There  is  no  substitute  for  musicianship,  and   scholarship  and  musicianship  are  two  different  things.
   

True enough, although your implication, which I have inferred from your series of posts on this topic, is that these people aren't musicians too. In reality, the proportion of excellent musicians in the period instrument cadre is as great as it is in the modern instrument ranks. There are less than stellar performers in both camps, no doubt.

Crappy performance is not improved on ANY instrument or by any performance belief or style.

[Bogey]

True enough, although your implication, which I have inferred from your series of posts on this topic, is that these people aren't musicians too. In reality, the proportion of excellent musicians in the period instrument cadre is as great as it is in the modern instrument ranks. There are less than stellar performers in both camps, no doubt.

Crappy performance is not improved on ANY instrument or by any performance belief or style.

And speaking of wonderful HIP performers Gurn:

http://dcc1079.googlepages.com/home

We have seen them twice and plan on trying to catch them again this year.  Their next performance is this:

French Connections - November 14-16, 2008
BCOC's first all-French program explores the singular music of Paris as it influenced (and was influenced by) music of other nations.  Acclaimed mezzo-soprano Jennifer Lane joins the orchestra in a program of vocal and instrumental works by Lully, Rameau, Monteclair, Leclair and Telemann.  Special guest artist: Jennifer Lane, mezzo-soprano.

[Gurn Blanston]

And speaking of wonderful HIP performers Gurn:

http://dcc1079.googlepages.com/home

We have seen them twice and plan on trying to catch them again this year.  Their next performance is this:

French Connections - November 14-16, 2008
BCOC's first all-French program explores the singular music of Paris as it influenced (and was influenced by) music of other nations.  Acclaimed mezzo-soprano Jennifer Lane joins the orchestra in a program of vocal and instrumental works by Lully, Rameau, Monteclair, Leclair and Telemann.  Special guest artist: Jennifer Lane, mezzo-soprano.

Very nice, Bill! I would greatly enjoy that trumpet recital too. Truly good Baroque trumpeters are a marvel. And the price is right, I would pay twice that for the opportunity.

[M forever]

Mforever,  I  am  very  familiar  with   HIP  research  and  think  that's  fine.

You may think that reading classicstoday now and then makes you a great expert on that subject, but it is all too obvious that you don't know what HIP really is, what historical performance practices really are, and you have no clue what has happened in that scene in the last few decades.
That's a pity because it is a vast and very interesting subject which is very rewarding to explore, but you close your mind against that completely, so you miss a lot of interesting stuff. Your loss.

But  scholarship  and  the  use  of "the  correct  instruments"  do  not  guanatee  anything  in  themselves.  There  is  no  substitute  for  musicianship,  and   scholarship  and  musicianship  are  two  different  things.

Oh, wow, what a deep insight! So you think we don't know that? And who said anyway that "correct" instruments "guarantee" anything? Certainly none of the people you mentioned since they all work with modern instruments, too.

However, when it comes to playing historical music, a certain minimum degree of informedness definitely does not cause any harm and should actually be expected. It is pretty bizarre to see that attitude from people like you, that knowing about historical performance practice automatically means the people who know and study these things can't be good musicians. But you are the "Superhorn" and your ignorance of these subjects guarantees your superior musicianship, apparently.

And  Norrington's  vibratoless  performances   are  not  in  any  way  authentic.  We  know  that  string  vibrato  has  been  around  for  a  very  long  time.  In  his  violin  treatise,  Leopold  Mozart  actually   lambastes  some  players  for  using  EXCESSIVE  vibrato !  So  there !

So there what? So there we have proof now that you have no clue what you are talking about? It is by far not as simple as "to vibrate or not vibrate". We now that vibrato in many forms has been around for a very long time. The kinds of vibrato L.Mozart talks about are very different from what Norrington talks about. I think he sees the whole subject to narrowly himself, but that does not complete "disqualify" everything he does. I tried to give you an idea of how one could look at that in more detailed fashion with my discussion of his Tchaikovsky 6 recording, but that is apparently too complex for you with your black and white thinking. So the problem here is not that all musicians who are into HIP are too narrow-minded. The problem here is that you are.

I  have  heard  a  radio  broadcast  of  the   Planets  with  Roy  Goodman  and  the  New  Queeen's  Hall  orchestra.  Frankly,  it  sounded   balnd  and  lacking  in  color  to  me.

Then there is something wrong with the broadcast or your ears (or both). The performance as captured on the CD does not really bring any real musical "insights" or "revelations" as such, but the spectrum of sonorities of the orchestra is highly interesting. It doesn't sound too different from a modern orchestra at all, but there are many subtle differences which is what makes this recording worth listening to. The brass is more slender than many overbearing brass sections are today, and that actually improves the balances and allows a lot of woodwind detail to come through. The woodwinds themselves are interesting to listen to, like the Buffet bassoons which were the most common type of bassoon played in England back then but which have now been completely replaced by Heckel bassoons with their markedly different sonority. No big difference, no big deal, but really very interesting detail insights. And that is one of the things which music so interesting for the open-eared and detail-attentive listener.
BTW, my personal favorite recording of this piece is the one with the "modern" Philharmonia condcuted by Gardiner - but how can that be when he is a HIP fanatic who, according to you, insists that only historical instruments "guarantee" a good performance?

[Marc]

Neeme Järvi's opinion doesn't surprise me at all (if that is what he really thinks, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is), [....]

If that is true (a lot of these anecdotes aren't), it is very revealing because if players in a top (and veeeeery traditional, BTW) orchestra like the Concertgebouw are convinced by what a conductor like Harnoncourt tells them, that has absolutely nothing to do with "HIP arrogance". Orchestral musicians don't just believe whatever someone who happens on the podium tells them is "right". After all, they have to actually play in that way and make it work. So they know best if it actually works musically.
Funny though that Haitink later "rethought" his concept of Beethoven and presented a slimmed down, sized down Beethoven concept, very obviously under the impression of what had happened in the "HIP" world in the meantime.

About the 'truth' of the quotes: I remember them from interviews I read in the nineties, in a Dutch music magazine. Haitink f.i. told in his interview that one of the reasons he left Amsterdam, was that he couldn't get his way anymore with Mozart and Beet, because of the Hanoncourt HIP-influenced orchestra. And also the A'Dam management preferred other conductors for that genre.
But I admit it wasn't a good example of non-HIP arrogance, because Haitink has never been that arrogant against HIP. Indeed, as you mentioned, his later Beethoven recordings show that. And, even though the KCO are a 'conservative' bunch (I would prefer the word 'stubborn', though), even the orchestra was very interested in HIP-views in those years (midst seventies). Harnoncourt was rather nervous when he first rehearsed with the orchestra (Bach's Johannes-Passion), but first violinst Herman Krebbers got him relaxed by saying: "we're interested in your views, please share your insights with us."

About Haitink's non-original thinking: you might be right, but I really wouldn't know. I have seen some documentaries with f.i. Haitink's follow-up Chailly, and he might be another example of that, because he is referring a lot to musicians and directors that inspired him. He also was the first conductor who used the 'original' Mengelberg scores a lot, f.i. for Bach and Mahler, with all the annotations of the old maestro.

Funny to hear Chailly trying to talk Dutch and pronounce Mengelberg's annotation grimmige humor, when starting the 3rd movement of Mahler 9.

[M forever]

Being aware of and making stylistical choices based on knowing and understanding performance traditions, be they from earlier parts of the 20th century or further back doesn't make a performer "unoriginal". It makes him "informed" and "aware" of these layers of traditions. Which is basically what we should expect from any good musician, especially "classical" musicians.

As such, there is really no difference between musicians who use historical instruments and those who don't. They all base their interpretations on stylistic choices they make based on how much or little they "know" and "understand", and by that, I don't just mean in an "academic" way, also in a practical, musical way.

As a consequence of this, these days there is no more separation between "HIP" and "non-HIP". "HIP" has simply (but vastly) expanded the spectrum of stylistic choices available to performers today, whether they choose to play on modern or "historical" instruments. Or use modern instruments and incorporate insights gained from historical studies.

Basically, that's the way it has always been. Only, before "HIP", performers based their stylisitic choices usually just on whatever immediate background they happened to come from. "HIP" has added a whole lot more historical width and depth to that. That's all.
That's why there is no separation line there anymore today.

I don't dount what you say about Haitink and all that, but I have a really hard time imagining that an orchestra like the KCA shouldn't be able to respond to other interpretive approaches anymore after working with someone like Harnoncourt. Many other orchestras didn't have that problem. The BP and WP have worked with a lot of "HIP" conductors in the past 20 years, but they can still produce a more "romantic" sound when other conductors ask for it. E.g., within a short period of time, I heard Schumann's 4th and 2nd with the BP, conducted by Harnoncourt and Thielemann, respectively, and these performances couldn't have been more different in approach. But the orchestra reacted very enthusiastically to both.

[Superhorn]

    Don't  get  me  wrong  Mforever;  I  don't  dismiss  period  instrumment  performances  out  of  hand,  nor  do  I   question  the  musicianship  of   musicians  such  as  Harnoncourt, Gardiner,  Bruggen, Norrington,  etc.
   I  have  enjoyed   some  HIP  performances  very  much.  I  recently  saw  Handel's  Giulio  Cesare  from  Glyndebourne   on  DVD  and  thought  the  performance  was  musically  first  rate.  William  Christie  and  the   Orchestra  of the  Age  of  Enlightenment  (what  a  pretentious  name )  did  a  superb  job,  and  I  though  that  the  Cleopatra,  the  rising  star  Danielle  De  Niese  not  only  sang  gorgeously  but  was  absolutely  adorable.  I  think  I'm in  love !   The  production ,  which  set  the  opera  in   the  early  20th  century  with  Caear's  soldiers  dressed  like  Englishmen,  was  weird,  but  it  worked   anyway.  Cleopatra  in  this  production  was  like  a  sex  kitten  from  a  Fellini  movie !
   I  have  the  Mackerras  CD  with  the  same  orchestra  of  the  Schubert  Great  C  major,  and  it's  pretty  good,  but   also  the  classic  Furtwangler  recording  on  DG.  It's  not  a  politically  correct  performance,  but  who  cares  with  such  an  eloquent  performance?
   

[Marc]

I don't dount what you say about Haitink and all that, but I have a really hard time imagining that an orchestra like the KCA shouldn't be able to respond to other interpretive approaches anymore after working with someone like Harnoncourt. Many other orchestras didn't have that problem. The BP and WP have worked with a lot of "HIP" conductors in the past 20 years, but they can still produce a more "romantic" sound when other conductors ask for it. E.g., within a short period of time, I heard Schumann's 4th and 2nd with the BP, conducted by Harnoncourt and Thielemann, respectively, and these performances couldn't have been more different in approach. But the orchestra reacted very enthusiastically to both.

I totally understand your 'really hard time'.
And I also think that the KCO isn't very consequent in their behaviour, if what Haitink said is really true.
We were talking about their conservative or stubborn character, and, from what I read about the orchestra's history, I think that principal conductors have a harder time with them compared to a lot of guest conductors. Because, if one thinks one should give Haitink a hard time in Mozart and Beethoven, then why does one still invite and adore the immense popular but not so HIP Giulini?

The problem of a chief conductor with his orchestra, well, I don't know all that much about it. It's a complex matter, I think.
If only we could ask Van Beinum (bless him), Haitink and Chailly ourselves!

I've read biographies of Van Beinum and Haitink, though, and I also read interviews with Chailly, where these problems were mentioned.
The Dutchies Van Beinum and Haitink generally were very happy to flee oversea. They were very happy to work with the Los Angeles and London Phil, and felt much more appreciated there.

Haitink was much more praised in the Netherlands after he left the country. Suddenly everyone seemed to realize: this guy wasn't all that bad. (Of course, in the meantime he was somehow missed, because the Concertgebouw Orchestra already had their problems with their new conductor Chailly. )
I saw Haitink once on telly during the nineties, with another decoration on his chest, saying with a gentle smile: in foreign countries they invite me to conduct, in my own country they invite me to collect prizes.

When reading about Van Beinum's career I somehow got this image: people in LA remember him with tears in their eyes, because they loved him then, and still miss him today. People in Amsterdam remember him with tears in their eyes, because he died so dramatically (onstage while rehearsing) and only after his dead they realized how good he really was, and how serious his heart condition was. But during his lifetime they thought Mengelberg was much better, and also they thought that his problems with his health were a bit exaggerated.

What a stubborn bunch of people, these Dutch!

OK. Enough battering of my fellow countrymen [and women! Sorry, Stan, AND WOMEN!]. We Dutchies can be very friendly, too. I myself am a fine example of that!

O yeah, sure, and all the other Dutchies on this forum are too, of course!

[M forever]

Don't  get  me  wrong  Mforever;  I  don't  dismiss  period  instrumment  performances  out  of  hand

How can I not "get you wrong" when that's exactly what you explicitly said and insisted on several times over?

nor  do  I   question  the  musicianship  of   musicians  such  as  Harnoncourt, Gardiner,  Bruggen, Norrington,  etc. 

Again, you did, several times over.

I  have  enjoyed   some  HIP  performances  very  much. 

But you still dismiss the entire spectrum of historically informed performances because the NY Times critic doesn't understand the difference between valve and natural horns or because some people may have claimed "authenticity" for their interpretations?

the  classic  Furtwangler  recording  on  DG.  It's  not  a  politically  correct  performance,  but  who  cares  with  such  an  eloquent  performance?

Why is that "not politically correct"?

[Superhorn]

   Mforever,  will  you  please  stop  telling  me  I  know  nothing  about   HIP  research?  I  know  a  great  deal  about  it.  I  have  read  extensively  on  it  and  don't  object  to   the  attempt  to recreate   the  music  of  the  past  as  closely  as  possible.  But  many  of these  performances  have  frankly   sounded  pedantic,  inexpressive  and   unpleasant  in  sonority  to  me,  particularly  gut  strings,  which  sound  disagreeably  nasal, pinched  and  wheezing  to  me. 
   I  am  a  former  horn  player  with  a  great  deal  of  experience  playing  Brahms.  I  know  that  Brahms  wrote  his  horn  parts  as  if  they  were  for  natural  horns,  but  I  know he realized   that  this  would  not  be  the   norm.
   And  the  eminent  critic  Andrew  Porter,  who  has  been   such  a  useful  idiot  for  HIP,  once  showed  his  ignorance  of the  natural  horn  by  claiming  that  an"advantage"  of  the  natural  horn  in  18th  and  early  19th  century  music  is  the "extra  color"  provided  by  the  stopped  notes. 
   But  he  fails  to  realize  that  the  purpose  of  stopped  notes  was  to  increase  the  natural  horn's  ability  to  play  notes  normally  outside  the  harmonic  series  and   enable  composers  to  write  more  interesting  melodic  lines.  Stopped  notes  were  not  considered  extra  color  back  then.  And   the  great  hand  horn  virtuosos  of  the  day  such  as  Giovanni  Punto, were  admired  for  their  ability  to  disguise  the difference  between  open  and  stopped  notes   so  that  listeners  could  scarcely  tell   the  difference.
     

[M forever]

Mforever,  will  you  please  stop  telling  me  I  know  nothing  about   HIP  research?  I  know  a  great  deal  about  it.  I  have  read  extensively  on  it  and  don't  object  to   the  attempt  to recreate   the  music  of  the  past  as  closely  as  possible.  But  many  of these  performances  have  frankly   sounded  pedantic,  inexpressive  and   unpleasant  in  sonority  to  me,  particularly  gut  strings,  which  sound  disagreeably  nasal, pinched  and  wheezing  to  me. 

Then you have apparently never heard gut strings played well. And why do the people who do not play well on them disqualify everyone who uses them? Does anyone who can not play a valve horn properly (and there are countless people who can't) discredit and devaluate everyone who plays the valve horn? What silly logic is this?

And the main point of "HIP" is not to recreate performances of the past in the absence of recordings, but to learn as much about the performance practices and circumstances of the past to give the performer more stylistic choices to develop his interpretation here and now.

I  am  a  former  horn  player  with  a  great  deal  of  experience  playing  Brahms.  I  know  that  Brahms  wrote  his  horn  parts  as  if  they  were  for  natural  horns,  but  I  know he realized   that  this  would  not  be  the   norm.

So what? It still tells us what his sound ideal was. And it also tells us that the sound that comes closest to that ideal is the kind of horn which sounds closest to a natural horn, in other words, as far as modern instruments is concerned, the Vienna F horn, and not the thinnish horn sound a lot of American horn players (including you?) offer.

And  the  eminent  critic  Andrew  Porter,  who  has  been   such  a  useful  idiot  for  HIP,  once  showed  his  ignorance  of the  natural  horn  by  claiming  that  an"advantage"  of  the  natural  horn  in  18th  and  early  19th  century  music  is  the "extra  color"  provided  by  the  stopped  notes. 
But  he  fails  to  realize  that  the  purpose  of  stopped  notes  was  to  increase  the  natural  horn's  ability  to  play  notes  normally  outside  the  harmonic  series  and   enable  composers  to  write  more  interesting  melodic  lines.  Stopped  notes  were  not  considered  extra  color  back  then.  And   the  great  hand  horn  virtuosos  of  the  day  such  as  Giovanni  Punto, were  admired  for  their  ability  to  disguise  the difference  between  open  and  stopped  notes   so  that  listeners  could  scarcely  tell   the  difference.    

Once again, I think you fail to realize the complexity of questions like these. We know that the ability to play stopped notes so that they don't "stick out" was highly valued, but that doesn't mean that the particular sound of the stopped notes can never have been intended to stand out as a special effect here and there. Especially since after the invention of the valve horn, before it had even replaced the natural horn, composers almost immediately started prescribing stopped or muted effects.
There are places, e.g. the high F in the second movement of the Eroica (in the third horn, IIRC) where it looks a lot like Beethoven wanted this to stand out because it is very exposed and played f (or even ff?).

You seem to think that for all these questions, there are simple right/wrong answers, but most of the time, there aren't. Apparently, that is why you are not able to see beyond the more extreme proclamations of some "HIP" exponents and take everything literally and generalize it across the entire spectrum.

If you develop the ability to look at these complex things in more nuanced and better informed ways, you will gain a lot more understanding and enjoyment of this subject.

As Miles Davis said, music is all about style. So is "HIP" research.

[Superhorn]

    Far  from  seeing  things  in  "black  and  white",  I  realize  that  the  questions  of  period  practice,  instruments  used  and  other  issues  is  an  extremely  complex  one.  I  was  not  using  the  examples  I  cited  about  fatuous  pronunciations  by   HIP  musicians  and  critics  who  advocate  it as  an  excuse  to  dismiss  the  movement  out of  hand;  I  was  trying  to  show  how  arrogant  many  are  and  how  blindly  they  accept  the  premises  of  the  movement.  I  would  say  that  I   have  enjoyed  SOME  period instrument  performances   IN  SPITE  of  the  instruments  used,  not  because  of  them.  The  performances  I  have  heard  with  pinched, nasal,  wheezing  string  sound  on  gut  strings  have  been  by  highly  reputable  musicians  whom  you   would  not  accuse  of  playing  their  instruments  badly. I  just  don't  like  the  sound  of  gut  strings;  I  guess  that's because  I  did   not  grow  up  listening  to  them.
   And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.
    I  love  the  sound  of   the  Viennese  F  horn,  but  many  other  great  horn  players  using  different  valved  horns  sound  wonderful  too.
    It's  not  the  period  instrument  performances  I  object  to  as  much  as  the  fatuous  statements  of  some  of   the  musicians.

[Bulldog]

    Far  from  seeing  things  in  "black  and  white",  I  realize  that  the  questions  of  period  practice,  instruments  used  and  other  issues  is  an  extremely  complex  one.  I  was  not  using  the  examples  I  cited  about  fatuous  pronunciations  by   HIP  musicians  and  critics  who  advocate  it as  an  excuse  to  dismiss  the  movement  out of  hand;  I  was  trying  to  show  how  arrogant  many  are  and  how  blindly  they  accept  the  premises  of  the  movement.  I  would  say  that  I   have  enjoyed  SOME  period instrument  performances   IN  SPITE  of  the  instruments  used,  not  because  of  them.  The  performances  I  have  heard  with  pinched, nasal,  wheezing  string  sound  on  gut  strings  have  been  by  highly  reputable  musicians  whom  you   would  not  accuse  of  playing  their  instruments  badly. I  just  don't  like  the  sound  of  gut  strings;  I  guess  that's because  I  did   not  grow  up  listening  to  them.
   And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.
 

Don't you realize that your views are always slanted against period instruments and the HIP approach?  Just the above two paragraphs are full of slanted opinions.  As an example, you pit imaginative piano interpretations against dull harpsichord performances - not a fair comparision for imagination routinely trumps boredom.  Turn it around - imaginative harpsichord interpretations beat dull piano performances.  And you can be assured that plenty of piano performances of baroque keyboard music are just as dull as harpsichord performances.

As far as the significance of growing up with or without period instruments, I think that means little.  I never heard period instruments until I was in my late 30's - loved them on first hearing.

[M forever]

And which HIP musicians actually claim to play "100% super correct"? Even if a very few may make such exaggerated claims, there are just as many, actually, many, many more who make the same kind of claims in the non-HIP field.
In both fields - which, like I said, aren't really that separated anymore anyway -, you find good and bad musicians, some which make drastic statements and claims, that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity (or not) of any kind of approach to music making.
Besides, even though Superhorn keeps repeating that, very few of the most relevant HIP musicians make such statements. Most of them continually point to the experimental and exploring nature of their work.
I have read many interviews with Harnoncourt, for instance, and I can remember very few in which he didn't very explicitly say that the point of HIP for him is not to be "authentic" or to "reconstruct" actual historical interpretations, but to just find out as much about the music, its style and cultural context to develop a deeper understanding and have more freedom and more stylistically coherent choices for music making available.

[jochanaan]

...As far as the significance of growing up with or without period instruments, I think that means little.  I never heard period instruments until I was in my late 30's - loved them on first hearing.

Yes.  I first heard the AAM/Hogwood Messiah when I was in college (that dates me a little! ), and although Hogwood's tempos took some getting used to, I was instantly fascinated by the period sound.  Yet even before that, I had heard a consort of early instruments from the University of Kansas at Lawrence and loved its sound.

[Superhorn]

   My  comments  aren't "slanted"  against  period  instruments,  or  slanted  at  all.  They're  just  my  opinions, and  you  can  take  them  or  leave  them.  And  I  have  considerable  admiration for  Harnoncourt.  I  might  not  like  his  interpretive  ideas  in  every  case,  but  his  performances  are  always  interesting  and  thought-provoking. 
   My  comments  about  Bach  on  piano  vs   harpsichord  are  in  no  way  a  rejection  of   the  use  of  this  instrument;  I   can  enjoy  his  music  on  harpsichord, too.  What  I  meant  is  that  just   dutifully  following   what  is  currently  believed  to  be  stylistically  "correct"  is  not  enough.
   I  have  actually  become  much  more  tolerant  of  period  instruments   than  I  originally  was  many  years  ago.  I  was  never  opposed   their use  per  se;  I  just  thought  they  usually  sounded  awful, particualrly  the  gut  strings.  But  I  still   don't  mind  modern  instruments  at  all.

[Superhorn]

   If  you  think  I  learned  everything   I  know  about  HIP  from  reading  classics  today,  you  are  dead  wrong.  I  have  read   great  deal  about  it  from  many  sources.  I  don't  always  agree  with  Hurwitz;  in  fact  he  often   PO's  me,too.  But  sometimes  he  is  right  on  the money,  and  that  much  of  what  he  says  about  HIP  performances is  quite  reasonable.

[Bulldog]

   My  comments  aren't "slanted"  against  period  instruments,  or  slanted  at  all.  They're  just  my  opinions, and  you  can  take  them  or  leave  them. 

They aren't for me to take or leave.

[M forever]

And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.

And which HIP musicians actually claim to play "100% super correct"? Even if a very few may make such exaggerated claims, there are just as many, actually, many, many more who make the same kind of claims in the non-HIP field.

My  comments  about  Bach  on  piano  vs   harpsichord  are  in  no  way  a  rejection  of   the  use  of  this  instrument;  I   can  enjoy  his  music  on  harpsichord, too.  What  I  meant  is  that  just   dutifully  following   what  is  currently  believed  to  be  stylistically  "correct"  is  not  enough.

Again:

And which HIP musicians actually claim to play "100% super correct"?

[Jay F]

    Far  from  seeing  things  in  "black  and  white",  I  realize  that  the  questions  of  period  practice,  instruments  used  and  other  issues  is  an  extremely  complex  one.  I  was  not  using  the  examples  I  cited  about  fatuous  pronunciations  by   HIP  musicians  and  critics  who  advocate  it as  an  excuse  to  dismiss  the  movement  out of  hand;  I  was  trying  to  show  how  arrogant  many  are  and  how  blindly  they  accept  the  premises  of  the  movement.  I  would  say  that  I   have  enjoyed  SOME  period instrument  performances   IN  SPITE  of  the  instruments  used,  not  because  of  them.  The  performances  I  have  heard  with  pinched, nasal,  wheezing  string  sound  on  gut  strings  have  been  by  highly  reputable  musicians  whom  you   would  not  accuse  of  playing  their  instruments  badly. I  just  don't  like  the  sound  of  gut  strings;  I  guess  that's because  I  did   not  grow  up  listening  to  them.
   And  I  would  rather  hear  a  pianist,  using  the  "wrong"  instrument,  play  the  Goldberg  variations  and  other  keyboard  works  of  Bach  with  imagination  and  panache  than  a   super-learned  HIP  musician  on  harpsichord   play  these  works  in  a  100%  "correct"  manner   but  in   dull,  pedantic  way.
    I  love  the  sound  of   the  Viennese  F  horn,  but  many  other  great  horn  players  using  different  valved  horns  sound  wonderful  too.
    It's  not  the  period  instrument  performances  I  object  to  as  much  as  the  fatuous  statements  of  some  of   the  musicians.

Superhorn, why is your formatting so, for lack of a better word, space-y? It's hard to read.