The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Antoine Marchand]

And don't be fooled by people who say they like period instrument performance who really don't. Just sayin'...

You can be rude when the thing is about HIP, Gurn... I like that, I'm not a citizen of the world. 

[Gurn Blanston]

You can be rude when the thing is about HIP, Gurn... I like that, I'm not a citizen of the world. 

Thanks, Antoine, I take that as a compliment. Frankly, I'm tired of being patronized by pseudo-adventurers who enjoy the occasional excursion off the beaten path.

[Antoine Marchand]

Thanks, Antoine, I take that as a compliment. Frankly, I'm tired of being patronized by pseudo-adventurers who enjoy the occasional excursion off the beaten path.

I totally agree: One thing is one thing and another thing is another thing. 

[Franco]

Thanks, Antoine, I take that as a compliment. Frankly, I'm tired of being patronized by pseudo-adventurers who enjoy the occasional excursion off the beaten path.

Well, I hope you are not including me in that group.  I sure don't think of myself as patronizing anyone by my occasional excursions into a thread like this, even though it is true that I plead guilty to not always preferring the PI approach.  But, if it is true that one must be doctrinare, one way or the other, in order to have credibility when discussing PI or non-PI preferences, then I guess that leaves me out.

[False_Dmitry]

Although I greatly value the timbres of period instruments, the HIP thing is far from only being about that.

Of equal (greater?!) value is the question of stylistic interpretation in a manner sympathetic to the music in question.  We have performing treatises about the way "the dots" were performed from many periods and locations.  Notes inegales in Couperin and Rameau?  When to double-dot in French Overtures?  What ornaments to add, and when?

It's very wrong to assume that the printed music was always performed with the same set of assumptions as today    Not performing these nuances may perhaps be a matter of choice - but not knowing about them is a matter of unforgiveable ignorance

[Brahmsian]

Well, I hope you are not including me in that group.  I sure don't think of myself as patronizing anyone by my occasional excursions into a thread like this, even though it is true that I plead guilty to not always preferring the PI approach.  But, if it is true that one must be doctrinare, one way or the other, in order to have credibility when discussing PI or non-PI preferences, then I guess that leaves me out.

Same here.  I don't need the snooty attitude when we are trying to discuss what we prefer, whether it's HIP, HIPPI, or HIPPI-HIPPI-SHAKE. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, I hope you are not including me in that group.  I sure don't think of myself as patronizing anyone by my occasional excursions into a thread like this, even though it is true that I plead guilty to not always preferring the PI approach.  But, if it is true that one must be doctrinare, one way or the other, in order to have credibility when discussing PI or non-PI preferences, then I guess that leaves me out.

Not in the least. I have never thought of you as pseudo anything. Or patronizing. It's OK, Franco, Antoine knows what I'm talking about, that's sufficient. Sometimes I forget when  I'm not in the PM mode...

[Gurn Blanston]

Same here.  I don't need the snooty attitude when we are trying to discuss what we prefer, whether it's HIP, HIPPI, or HIPPI-HIPPI-SHAKE. 

Really, well other than the occasional diatribe by our old friend Rod, I can't remember a single time when any HIP-PIon was even fractionally as rude to modernists as is the reverse any time the subject arises. Please show me one and I'll smite him.

[karlhenning]

Yea, with a mighty smiting!

[Brahmsian]

And don't be fooled by people who say they like period instrument performance who really don't. Just sayin'...

Can't one enjoy it only on occasion, in certain situations or certain composers?  Why does it have to be an all or nothing situation?

[karlhenning]

Point well taken, Ray. I suspect Gurn was funnin' a bit.

[Gurn Blanston]

Although I greatly value the timbres of period instruments, the HIP thing is far from only being about that.

Of equal (greater?!) value is the question of stylistic interpretation in a manner sympathetic to the music in question.  We have performing treatises about the way "the dots" were performed from many periods and locations.  Notes inegales in Couperin and Rameau?  When to double-dot in French Overtures?  What ornaments to add, and when?

It's very wrong to assume that the printed music was always performed with the same set of assumptions as today    Not performing these nuances may perhaps be a matter of choice - but not knowing about them is a matter of unforgiveable ignorance

Unquestionably true. Way more than about just the tone of the instruments. To my way of seeing things, the biggest acceptance problem is that people think that music performance then (18th century, I'm talking about) should be like music performance now, except that the instruments are weird. It is simply not so, and until one gets out of that mindset one cannot possibly enjoy. And it isn't just the listeners, it's the performers (most of all??). Just because you can string your fiddle with gut, or tinkle a fortepiano more easily than a Steinway, doesn't make you a historical style performer.

[Gurn Blanston]

Can't one enjoy enjoy it only on occasion, in certain situations or certain composers?  Why does it have to be an all or nothing situation?

Who says it can't? That isn't what I was intending to convey, and sorry you took it that way. I'm talking about a whole 'nother group altogether, the ones that are represented by what I think of as the "why, some of my best friends are Negroes" sort of people.

[Bulldog]

Can't one enjoy it only on occasion, in certain situations or certain composers?  Why does it have to be an all or nothing situation?

It doesn't and it isn't.  What bothers me is when some folks attribute unsavory motives to PI performers/conductors and also claim that the performers took the PI route because they don't have the technical skills to compete with modern instrument performers.

Another thing that bugs me is people saying they don't mind PI but then have only negative comments to make.

[Gurn Blanston]

Another thing that bugs me is people saying they don't mind PI but then have only negative comments to make.

Thank you, Don. I stew in silence ordinarily over this. Probably the root of my discontent.

[jochanaan]

...It's very wrong to assume that the printed music was always performed with the same set of assumptions as today ...

A very valid point.  One of the things I thank the HIP movement for is bringing back the high art of improvisation to our music.

[BMW]

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

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'...

I like a little of everything but spend a lot of time with orchestral and vocal music.  My first negative impression of period performance practices came through a set of Beethoven's symphonies from the library (cannot remember whose, but I do recall that it was a fairly early project) -- I just got the impression that the tempos were consistently fast for the sake of being fast.  Other HIP performances I have checked out have mostly been pieces by my favorite composers whose music is relevant to the HIP discussion --- Bach, Beethoven, Handel Mozart ......  (having favorite non-HIP recordings of their music firmly entrenched in my mind probably contributes to rejection of the other style). I have enjoyed parts of Gardiner's Mozart (very energetic, lots of drive) but was not too crazy for his Messiah (just seems very halfhearted).  No, I have not heard any of the recordings on the side column of the Bach piece.

It is not so much the period instruments, boy sopranos, countertenors, etc that give me trouble (I actually find their sounds refreshing at times), it is the performances themselves that have been a little lacking.

[The new erato]

What I feel is gained by HIP (however that is defined) is a sense of tranaparency in the music making that make even larger works more chamber like in appearance (for me a big plus) and reinstating a sense of daring in the playing often hidden when the music is played by modern (safer) instruments, giving the music a sense of spontaneity that is much harder to achieve in traditional settings. I find it more a "rock and roll" approach - some people her will understand what I mean, others will be clueless....

My favorite London Symphonies are still Jochums, but overall I find that HIP has opened a window to the music that I not always previously suspected existed. And the early music specialists of course digs up repertory that we would never have heard in the "good old" times.

[Philoctetes]

This has to be the most boring debate ever. 

But as to the topic, I do love hearing the music of Haydn and those previous to him on 'period' instruments.

Especially if played by babes. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHHyEuwRo4

[jochanaan]

Really, well other than the occasional diatribe by our old friend Rod, I can't remember a single time when any HIP-PIon was even fractionally as rude to modernists as is the reverse any time the subject arises. Please show me one and I'll smite him.

Sort of like the discussions about those dratted modern composers.