The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Bulldog]

Berlioz and Liszt come to mind...Scriabin?
didn't HIP die with post modernism?

the other definition would include Nigel Kennedy, Kronos Qrt., and Gorecki's 3rd........marketing. HIP means the 60s, right? culturalism? otherwise, it's an acronym i don't understand.

HIP stands for historically informed performance.

[jlaurson]

If you haven't heard these three recordings, then you don't know what you are missing.

Forget "HIP" vs. "non-HIP". It's much more fun to not think of it as ideology [assuming the artists don't shove it down your throat that way, be it Zukerman or Rifkin], but a great music (or not).

Lots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"... Lots of non-HIP is awesome... be it Celbidache's Bruckner or Karl Richter's Bach or all those Scarlatti performances on Piano (Pletnev!)...

I only don't like when HIP ensembles REPLACE regular bands playing Baroque and Classical music. That, I think, is a very negative trend. ("Why Haydn should be Mandatory"). And I also don't believe in HIP-only Mozart or HIP-only Haydn. If you've heard the Mozart symphonies of the Berlin Philharmonic with Pinnock (on their "Digital Concert Hall" channel), or know anything about Krips' Mozart or Jansons' (RCO) or even Beecham's Haydn, you'd not be tempted to think in that direction, anyway.




Vivaldi, Four Seasons, Alessandrini, Concerto Italiano   (Review)

Haydn, String Quartets op.20, Quatuor Mosaique (tiny Review)


Bach, Mass in B-Minor, van Veldhoven, Nederlands Bach Society (Review)

[Bulldog]

Lots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"...

I have a disc of Lickl quartets played by the Authentic Qt.  Can't say that any technical aspects bother me, but the group sounds cold.  I'm familiar enough with Lickl's music to know that there's some decent emotional content in there that the Authentic doesn't address.

[Que]

If you haven't heard these three recordings, then you don't know what you are missing.

You know, I haven't heard Van Veldhoven's B-minor! I'll certainly check it out. But maybe you don't know Hengelbrock's? If so - strongly recommended.

Forget "HIP" vs. "non-HIP". It's much more fun to not think of it as ideology [assuming the artists don't shove it down your throat that way, be it Zukerman or Rifkin], but a great music (or not).

Absolutely.

Lots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"...

Subscribing to this popular notion is maybe a nice gesture to the anti-HIP brigade, but I can't agree - not if it is stated as generalised like this. Undoubtedly there are examples of scratchy playing, especially in the early days of HIP, but "lots"? HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now.

Lots of non-HIP is awesome... be it Celbidache's Bruckner or Karl Richter's Bach or all those Scarlatti performances on Piano (Pletnev!)...

Absolutely, though I personally wouldn't have mentioned these examples.

I only don't like when HIP ensembles REPLACE regular bands playing Baroque and Classical music. That, I think, is a very negative trend. ("Why Haydn should be Mandatory"). And I also don't believe in HIP-only Mozart or HIP-only Haydn. If you've heard the Mozart symphonies of the Berlin Philharmonic with Pinnock (on their "Digital Concert Hall" channel), or know anything about Krips' Mozart or Jansons' (RCO) or even Beecham's Haydn, you'd not be tempted to think in that direction, anyway.

Interesting ideas there. And yes, I can understand why a 19th century style symphony orchestra needs to play Haydn & Mozart. Yet the trend for specialisation is irreversible IMO. Maybe they should play it, but not record it? I wouldn't buy it anyway...

I myself would favour the idea that players in such traditional orchestras would develop their own knowledge on HIP and play older music on a period instrument!  Now that would indeed add something valuable to their musical expertise when playing Bruckner!  Much more than playing Haydn like in the days of Karajan or Scherchen....Applying late 19th/early 20th century musical practises to music of earlier eras has only limited value.... There actually are some examples of artists moving in HIP as well as non-HIP circles. Dutch hornist Ab Koster comes to mind.

Q

[jlaurson]

Subscribing to this popular notion is maybe a nice gesture to the anti-HIP brigade, but I can't agree - not if it is stated as generalised like this. Undoubtedly there are examples of scratchy playing, especially in the early days of HIP, but "lots"? HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now.

I'm not just trying to pander to the anti-HIP brigade with that statement. And I find Zukerman-like stands idiotic. But "A lot of" isn't that generalized a statement that I feel compelled to take it back. In any case not more generalized than saying: "HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now." All HIP performances? No. Some have achieved near perfection (check out Egarr's Brandenburgs when they come out... it's quite amazing!). Some don't even need "near perfection" to be tittilating. But on average they are no better than non-HIP groups, with the added disadvantage of playing much more difficult to handle instruments.

Obviously most of those HIP perfs. we hear recorded (and most [not all!] of the people on this list seem to be recording geeks, rather than concert-goers), are pretty good, because there's a quality control built in. But even Pinnock's old Brandenburg's don't sound that great anymore, and many (smaller) bands active today haven't even reached the level of the English Concert had back then. And that "Authentic Quartet"'s performance under the impression of which I wrote that, just really angered me. I just don't want to hear anything anymore, that's not up to the intonation-and quality-standards of, say, Rachel Podger. If you are not willing to invest your time in learning to use gut strings and old bows and flat finger boards and low bridges well, buy yourself a modern instrument that suits your limited assiduity, talent, or skill. Argh. [Rant over] This is not against HIP, this is about performance standards in general and applies to modern groups as well.

As per my "Haydn is Mandatory" comment: Strauss, Mahler, Brahms, and Bruckner wrote for Orchestras that played Mozart and Haydn on a regular basis. Not the same size, obviously, since their demands were greater, but as far as their musical diet is concerned. If the orchestras lose that, then they lose the ability to play Romantic fare--and the only music they could satisfactorily play would be John Adams and Rihm. And as much as I think the latter two should be a part of the musical diet, if they were the only (well played) part, I'd want to jump off a tall building.

But maybe you don't know Hengelbrock's?

No, I have not. But I heard him a few days ago in the Mozart Requiem and Bach chorales wedged into a performance of the Frank Martin Violin Concertino.

[Bunny]

[snip]

Forget "HIP" vs. "non-HIP". It's much more fun to not think of it as ideology [assuming the artists don't shove it down your throat that way, be it Zukerman or Rifkin], but a great music (or not).

Lots of "HIP" is scratchy, out of tune playing (just listened to a disc of lovely Woelfl string quartets on Hungaroton (contemp. of Mozart), ruined by the "Authentic Quartet"... Lots of non-HIP is awesome... be it Celbidache's Bruckner or Karl Richter's Bach or all those Scarlatti performances on Piano (Pletnev!)...

I only don't like when HIP ensembles REPLACE regular bands playing Baroque and Classical music. That, I think, is a very negative trend. ("Why Haydn should be Mandatory"). And I also don't believe in HIP-only Mozart or HIP-only Haydn. If you've heard the Mozart symphonies of the Berlin Philharmonic with Pinnock (on their "Digital Concert Hall" channel), or know anything about Krips' Mozart or Jansons' (RCO) or even Beecham's Haydn, you'd not be tempted to think in that direction, anyway.

I'm not just trying to pander to the anti-HIP brigade with that statement. And I find Zukerman-like stands idiotic. But "A lot of" isn't that generalized a statement that I feel compelled to take it back. In any case not more generalized than saying: "HIP performances are technically highly accomplished for quite some time now." All HIP performances? No. Some have achieved near perfection (check out Egarr's Brandenburgs when they come out... it's quite amazing!). Some don't even need "near perfection" to be tittilating. But on average they are no better than non-HIP groups, with the added disadvantage of playing much more difficult to handle instruments.

Obviously most of those HIP perfs. we hear recorded (and most [not all!] of the people on this list seem to be recording geeks, rather than concert-goers), are pretty good, because there's a quality control built in. But even Pinnock's old Brandenburg's don't sound that great anymore, and many (smaller) bands active today haven't even reached the level of the English Concert had back then. And that "Authentic Quartet"'s performance under the impression of which I wrote that, just really angered me. I just don't want to hear anything anymore, that's not up to the intonation-and quality-standards of, say, Rachel Podger. If you are not willing to invest your time in learning to use gut strings and old bows and flat finger boards and low bridges well, buy yourself a modern instrument that suits your limited assiduity, talent, or skill. Argh. [Rant over] This is not against HIP, this is about performance standards in general and applies to modern groups as well.

As per my "Haydn is Mandatory" comment: Strauss, Mahler, Brahms, and Bruckner wrote for Orchestras that played Mozart and Haydn on a regular basis. Not the same size, obviously, since their demands were greater, but as far as their musical diet is concerned. If the orchestras lose that, then they lose the ability to play Romantic fare--and the only music they could satisfactorily play would be John Adams and Rihm. And as much as I think the latter two should be a part of the musical diet, if they were the only (well played) part, I'd want to jump off a tall building.

No, I have not. But I heard him a few days ago in the Mozart Requiem and Bach chorales wedged into a performance of the Frank Martin Violin Concertino.

Unfortunately, Zuckerman isn't the only violinist who makes it an Us v. Them war.  Perlman actually went on a short rant about period instrument performance on a cooking show I was watching!  Not at all the place for that.  Poor Jacques Pepin -- he really didn't know what to say.

I have to agree with you about the decline in performance standards which is true for some "great" orchestras as well as for less well known ensembles (HIP and modern instrument).  However that's not really something related to HIP performance, but more a result of the way things are being done generally in our times.  I'm not familiar with the "Authentic Quartet," but I never heard that the type and quality of the instruments being played guaranteed good music making.  Bad music making is, unfortunately, much more common than great music making.  Whenever I pick up a recording that's a clanker, I feel like apologizing to my wallet as well as to my ears. It's worse when I'm at a concert where the playing is rough or the vocalist can't be heard.  Good manners keeps me in my seat when I'd rather just leave. 

Btw, I have tickets to Richard Egarr and the AAM doing the complete Brandenburgs later in the spring.  I am now breathless with anticipation.

[jlaurson]

Latest on WETA


Free Bach from the HIPsters
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231

[Franco]

Latest on WETA


Free Bach from the HIPsters
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231

I thought you were offering free downloads.   

[Superhorn]

   My position on HIP is  between the snooty HIP fanatics who sneer at any performance on modern instruments and the anti-period instrument scoffers.
  The use of period instruments guarantees absolutely nothing esthetically. Just dutifully going through the motions of everything that's currently considered correct performance practice is not enough.
  Too many of these so-called "authentic" performances have struck me as pedantic,inexpressive and unpleasant sounding. But I've grown more tolerant of HIP performances and have enjoyed some of them not because they use period instruments,but in spite of the fact they do,and have a number of recordings of them.
  And I still enjoy performances of baroque and classical works on modern instruments.
  But the movement has been carried to absurd lengths. Do we really need HIP Bruckner? I recently borrowed the Herreweghe recording of the Bruckner 4th with the Champs Elysees orchestra. It was pretty good,but I could hardly hear any difference between it and the great orchestras we're accustomed to hearing in Bruckner,such as the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics etc.
I'm not going to give up my recordings of Bruckner symphonies by Tennstedt,Furtwangler,Chailly, Muti,Wand,Karajan, Skrowaczewski,Eschenbach et al for purportedly"authentic" Bruckner.
  I remember seeing Itzhak Perlman on the cooking show "The Frugal Gourmet". It should have been changed to the "Fugal Gourmet" in hoor of Perlman. I agree with Perlman and Zukerman up to a point about HIP.
  As the eminent musicologist Richard Taruskin has so wisely pointed out,"Instruments don't make music-people do". HIP snobs should never forget this fact.

[Bulldog]

   My position on HIP is  between the snooty HIP fanatics who sneer at any performance on modern instruments and the anti-period instrument scoffers.
  The use of period instruments guarantees absolutely nothing esthetically. Just dutifully going through the motions of everything that's currently considered correct performance practice is not enough.
  Too many of these so-called "authentic" performances have struck me as pedantic,inexpressive and unpleasant sounding. But I've grown more tolerant of HIP performances and have enjoyed some of them not because they use period instruments,but in spite of the fact they do,and have a number of recordings of them.
  And I still enjoy performances of baroque and classical works on modern instruments.
  But the movement has been carried to absurd lengths. Do we really need HIP Bruckner?

I don't think it's a matter of what "we really need".  There are folks who want to perform Bruckner on period instruments and folks who want to hear it. 

Although you say that you're between the two extremes, it's clear from your comments that you are closer to the anti-period scoffers than the snooty HIP fanatics.

My take on the subject is that "debate" is pretty useless because classical musical enthusiasts can have it any way they want.  The market is highly varied and allows for all tastes.

[Gurn Blanston]

.... And I still enjoy performances of baroque and classical works on modern instruments.
  But the movement has been carried to absurd lengths. Do we really need HIP Bruckner? I recently borrowed the Herreweghe recording of the Bruckner 4th with the Champs Elysees orchestra. It was pretty good,but I could hardly hear any difference between it and the great orchestras we're accustomed to hearing in Bruckner,such as the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics etc.
I'm not going to give up my recordings of Bruckner symphonies by Tennstedt,Furtwangler,Chailly, Muti,Wand,Karajan, Skrowaczewski,Eschenbach et al for purportedly"authentic" Bruckner.
  I remember seeing Itzhak Perlman on the cooking show "The Frugal Gourmet". It should have been changed to the "Fugal Gourmet" in hoor of Perlman. I agree with Perlman and Zukerman up to a point about HIP.
  As the eminent musicologist Richard Taruskin has so wisely pointed out,"Instruments don't make music-people do". HIP snobs should never forget this fact.

You're (or I should say, Taruskin) absolutely right, people DO make music. It is you that is hung up on the authenticity of it. And you are living so far in the past; it's been at least 15 years since any PI performance was recorded and released that sounded like a museum piece. If you're gonna comment something, at least make it current.

BTW, I like modern (i.e. "living") performers on modern instruments as much as you do. I even admit the technical artistry of the zombie brigade. It is their ludicrous, post-Romantic performance style that makes me puke. I wish you non-PIons could begin to get a grip on that. If you did, you would be the first, apparently.




----------------
Now playing:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 30 Quartet in D for Strings Op 17 #6 3rd mvmt - Largo

[Franco]

Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 30 Quartet in D for Strings Op 17 #6

Gurn,

I've been listening to the Haydn SQ recorded by the Quatuor Mosaiques, and slowly liking it more and more.  How would you describe the Festetics compared to the QM?

Thread duty - I am for more recordings by all kinds of performers exhibiting every imaginable performance philosophy, but my current preferences are:

"Hybrid" orchestral recodings

PI chamber recordings

Modern piano in solo repertory

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn,

I've been listening to the Haydn SQ recorded by the Quatuor Mosaiques, and slowly liking it more and more.  How would you describe the Festetics compared to the QM?

Thread duty - I am for more recordings by all kinds of performers exhibiting every imaginable performance philosophy, but my current preferences are:

"Hybrid" orchestral recodings

PI chamber recordings

Modern piano in solo repertory

Mosaiques are smoother and more polished, generally take things a bit slower. The thing I like best about Festetics is that they just seem more rough 'n' ready, as it were. They are the sort of group that I would pay money to see because I know I would have a good time.  Mosaiques, I would be very impressed by them and maybe even be edified. Fact is, I don't want to be edified. I want to have a good time.

I know, I know, my opinions are out of the mainstream. Honest though...  0:)

[Franco]

Mosaiques are smoother and more polished, generally take things a bit slower. The thing I like best about Festetics is that they just seem more rough 'n' ready, as it were. They are the sort of group that I would pay money to see because I know I would have a good time.  Mosaiques, I would be very impressed by them and maybe even be edified. Fact is, I don't want to be edified. I want to have a good time.

I know, I know, my opinions are out of the mainstream. Honest though...  0:)

Thanks - I am not aware of the mainstream opinion of either group, I just had it in my head that both were relatively new groups performing the Haydn SQ from a HIP-PI place.

At first the Mosaiques sounded somewhat exaggerated with dynamics and articulation, but now that I've listened to them a bit more, I'm hearing more of the flow.  I might pick up a couple installments from the Festetics since, IMO, there's no such thing as owning too many recordings of the Haydn SQs, and it is really interesting to hear different approaches of the same works.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks - I am not aware of the mainstream opinion of either group, I just had it in my head that both were relatively new groups performing the Haydn SQ from a HIP-PI place.

At first the Mosaiques sounded somewhat exaggerated with dynamics and articulation, but now that I've listened to them a bit more, I'm hearing more of the flow.  I might pick up a couple installments from the Festetics since, IMO, there's no such thing as owning too many recordings of the Haydn SQs, and it is really interesting to hear different approaches of the same works.

Yeah, opinion and personal taste are really what count, most especially with these works. After listening to the arguments of the "London Haydn Quartet" proponents in this forum, I went ahead and got Op 9 & 17 by them. I freely admit that the playing was outstanding, but in most ways they were like the Mosaiques. I really don't want a recital. Especially those 2 opera, they were never meant to be played by anyone except Haydn and Tomassini and Kraft & friend, and that was strictly an off-duty pleasure, not even for the Prince. It was fun for them, and it should sound like it.

[BMW]

Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   

[Franco]

Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   

There are GMG-ers much more knowledgeable than I am on this topic, but for me, the Haydn Piano Trios are more interesting with PI than otherwise.

[jlaurson]

Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   

You'll have to help us out... what have you not liked so far? Haydn, specifically, or HIP in general?
What do you particularly dislike? (No point in asking you to appreciate the fortepiano quite yet, when that's something you can't stand, as of yet.
Do you have any of the discs listed in the side column of this piece? http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2231

[Brahmsian]

One isn't better than the other.  It's all about preferences. 

In general, I don't enjoy performances with period instruments as much as modern instruments.  My personal preference.  Some exceptions though.

I prefer to hear Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven piano works on modern pianos.

However, for Bach, I'd rather hear keyboard works on the harpsichord, rather than modern piano.

[Gurn Blanston]

Hypothetically, if one were looking to give this "HIP" business another shot, where should they start?   

What do you like now? (from Schubert going backwards). I mean, solo piano? Chamber music? Orchestral? I would be pleased to give you some guidance that would avoid money-wasting on your part, but need to know what you like already. And don't be fooled by people who say they like period instrument performance who really don't. Just sayin'...