The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Superhorn]

   Yes,  HIP is a lot like a religion. It has its true believers, such as Gardiner, Norrington, Hogwood, Harnoncourt, Bruggen, Leonhardt, and Herreweghe.
   
   They sing the praises of period instruments, worship at the altar of authenticity, sneer (not always ) at the use of modern instruments in the music of the Baroque, classical and sometimes even the Romantic period, and issue their Papal Bulls and Fatwas about performance practice. Fortunately, they don't fly planes into Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall or other concert venues, but with Roger Norrington, you never know. They sing the praises of gut strings, natural horns and the Urtext.

   Then there are the atheists , such as Pinchas Zuckerman, Itzhak Perlman and others, who dismiss the whole movement as pure charlatanism, and sneer
at musicians who use period instruments, and the ugly, out of tune sounds they produce. To them, it's the spirit of the performance that counts.

   I'm an agnostic ; to me, it was an interesting idea to hear what the music of Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven  etc might have sounded like, but I'm not sure that what we are hearing is in any way "authentic", or if old instruments or replicas thereof still sound exactly as they did in the past, they are being played exactly as they were, or if the music iis being interpreted exactly as the composers would have wanted.

  I've enjoyed SOME HIP performances, but it has been DESPITE the instruments used and not because of them. But too many have struck me as pedantic, inexpressive and unpleasant sounding. Some of these HIP musicians are so determined to get rid of anything that they believe to be stylistically "incorrect", that they have merely succeeded in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

   One poster here has taken me to task for statements like this, claiming that I learned everything I know about HIP by reading negative reviews of them by David Hurwitz at classicasotay.com. I'm afraid this is not correct at all. I was familiar with period instruments and had heard numerous performances and read much about them long before the internet and classica today even existed.

   

[Lethevich]

I find the adoration of dead conductors such as Furtwängler and Karajan to be just as religious, tbh...

[lukeottevanger]

Great, HIP and religion in one thread.  Still, it was only a matter of time.

FWIW, I think the analogies set up are both artificial and false (and the unbalanced, biased tone of the post doesn't help either). As Sara points out, there's an aura of religiosity that surrounds the hallowed and definitely non-HIP performers of the past.

In any event, if one wished to one could make just as persuasive a case (more persuasive, to my mind) that the non-HIPpers, with their denial of 'science' and their faith in power of the intangible and the 'scientifically incorrect', are far closer to religion than the rather Enlightenment, research-led HIp movement, whose dogmatism, if it exists, is the dogmatism of the scientist rather than the believer.

[Bulldog]

Superhorn is getting quite repetitive.  Everything he said in his opening post has been stated within the past couple of weeks.  He doesn't like HIP or period instrumentation - nothing new or insightful here.

[Superhorn]

    Maybe I am getting repetitious, and if that's so, my apologies. But it's not true that I don't like period instruments; maybe sometimes, but I have enjoyed some performances.
   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.

[Keemun]

My primary concern is how the music sounds.  I don't care much about claims of authenticity or lack thereof.  The fact is, I prefer the sound of HIP performances for some work, but not others.  (I'm using "HIP" to mean historically informed performances and/or period instrumentation.)  For example, my favorite recordings of Bach's Mass in B minor are HIP, but my favorite recordings of Bach's Cello Suites are non-HIP.  That's my two cents, which is all I have in my pocket on this issue, so enjoy the debate.   

[lukeottevanger]

    Maybe I am getting repetitious, and if that's so, my apologies. But it's not true that I don't like period instruments; maybe sometimes, but I have enjoyed some performances.
   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.

I've rarely if ever seen it. Though I've seen it displayed by those on 'the other side' fairly often.

And maybe here's the place to air my wish that among my many HIP discs I had some with these unpleasant-sounding instruments I'm always hearing about. All I ever seem to buy is these annoyingly beautiful-sounding and revelatory discs which enrich my listening immeasurably. (A much higher success-rate than with non-HIP recordings, I must say)

[Lethevich]

   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.

I sometimes have a problem with the fans, but rarely the musicians*. Sometimes HIP recordings can be fetishised slightly, but no worse than I see with other styles (such as historical recordings by the greats and the forgottens).

*Due to my age I was not around when HIP was in its infancy, and therefore may have missed some of the initial dogma.

[Bulldog]

    Maybe I am getting repetitious, and if that's so, my apologies. But it's not true that I don't like period instruments; maybe sometimes, but I have enjoyed some performances.
   What really angers me is the  arrogance , smugness and condescending attitude toward modern instruments of many prominent HIP musicians. It's all very well documented in interviews with them and other writings.

You're repeating yourself again.  Be fresh and move on to another topic.

[jochanaan]

Superhorn, here's a challenge for you: Check out some of the recordings by Ensemble 415, Europa Galante, and/or Musica Antiqua-Köln--some of the most idiomatic, flexible, and compelling performances of any age.  Then come back and tell us whether all HIP performers are dogmatic and unmusical.

[M forever]

How could he do that? Superhorn doesn't understand at all what HIP is and how it relates to other performance traditions. Because he doesn't understand other performance traditions and what is and what isn't "idiomatic" at all either.

He has repeatedly been asked to provide examples for the "dogmas" he keeps talking about with a stubborn repetetiveness that has made me begin to think he isn't an actual poster, but a spam program which simply reposts random blocks of the same generalized statements over and over and over and over again in different combinations - that is probably why the formatting is so strange.
So far, he has completely failed to provide sufficiently representative - or even any - examples examples to back up his nonsense.

The stuff about "religious dogma of HIP" fits nicely with the attitude of aggressive anti-intellectualism and proud ignorance too many Americans display these days and Mr O hit the nail on the head here:

FWIW, I think the analogies set up are both artificial and false (and the unbalanced, biased tone of the post doesn't help either). As Sara points out, there's an aura of religiosity that surrounds the hallowed and definitely non-HIP performers of the past.

In any event, if one wished to one could make just as persuasive a case (more persuasive, to my mind) that the non-HIPpers, with their denial of 'science' and their faith in power of the intangible and the 'scientifically incorrect', are far closer to religion than the rather Enlightenment, research-led HIp movement, whose dogmatism, if it exists, is the dogmatism of the scientist rather than the believer.

[Superhorn]

   M forever, I am a genuine person and not a spammer.  And with all due respect, to say that I "know nothing" about HIP" and performance practice and traditions etc is not only the hight of fatuousness but absolutely laughable.
  As I've pointed out already, I was familiar with HIP performances and theory long before classics today and the internet even existed.

  I'm not even offended by what you have been saying about me. You can say whatever you like about me, but that doesn't make it true.

   

[Szykneij]

I learned the answer to the question in the seventies ...

[anasazi]

My only reason to listen to this music is not historical.  This is akin to going to an art exhibit where the only lighting is kerosene lamps or fireplaces.  It is the music that counts.  When I can enjoy it, I do. If it is performed by Wendy Carlos, I don't have a problem.  My only problem is when people tell me that there is only ONE way to listen or appreciate these works.  Then I know that they may have an aggenda.

[lukeottevanger]

My only reason to listen to this music is not historical.  This is akin to going to an art exhibit where the only lighting is kerosene lamps or fireplaces.  It is the music that counts.  When I can enjoy it, I do. If it is performed by Wendy Carlos, I don't have a problem.  My only problem is when people tell me that there is only ONE way to listen or appreciate these works.  Then I know that they may have an aggenda.

But (assuming that there are these people, which I think more myth than actuality) what is that agenda?

As far as your analogy of HIP with lamps and fires lighting an art exhibition, that comes dangerously close to implying that all that HIP can give to a performance is cosmetic - IOW colour but not substance. It ignores the fact that HIP is historically informed performance as well as simply 'playing on old instruments'. And even if it were only the latter, performance on original instruments more often than not can reveal things about the music that are more than cosmetic - as in the wonderful, intimate Beethoven-on-an-1812-Broadwood recital I attended at the weekend, in which the sound of the fortepiano illuminated structural and compositional devices in the music which had never really been prominent to me before, and made the music even more impressive (and exciting) as a result.

[Superhorn]

   Jochanaan, I have heard quite a lot of those ensembles you mention on WQXR, to which I listen frequently, and they are pretty good, although the sound of the gut strings is still rather grating at times.

  I never made a blanket dismissal of HIP performances. But when I  return to the modern instrument recordings of Marriner and Leppard etc, it's actually quite refreshing ! The're still excellent, and absolutely valid.

[PerfectWagnerite]

One of the most stupendously emotional and fiery HIP performances I have heard is this one:



which should put an end once and for all that HIP recordings are sterile, grating, and thin.

[jochanaan]

   Jochanaan, I have heard quite a lot of those ensembles you mention on WQXR, to which I listen frequently, and they are pretty good, although the sound of the gut strings is still rather grating at times.

  I never made a blanket dismissal of HIP performances. But when I  return to the modern instrument recordings of Marriner and Leppard etc, it's actually quite refreshing ! The're still excellent, and absolutely valid.

Well, okay then: it's not their blankets you don't like, it's their guts.

[Que]

Well, okay then: it's not their blankets you don't like, it's their guts.

What's the problem with gut strings?? I think they sound beautiful: a full, sonorous and soft edged sound.
But I guess some prefer the more clean, wiry sound of modern strings... Which suits some (modern) music fine BTW.

Q

[Bulldog]

What's the problem with gut strings?? I think they sound beautiful: a full, sonorous and soft edged sound.
Q

Right on target.