The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Philoctetes]

Playing, errr, cello suites on the harpsichord, right?   Ho-ho-ho, there are lots of "harpsichordists" who can do that...

Let us know when she learns to play with both hands at the same time?

I won't hold my breath!   

She has like 30 other recordings posted.

[False_Dmitry]

She has like 30 other recordings posted.

On YouTube.

[Superhorn]

    Yes,I love the VPO's playing. But they don't use gut strings(thank god!). 

[Superhorn]

   I just chgcked the New Queens hall orchestra's website,and here are some of the ridiculous statements made by its manager John Boyden,and the statement of the "orchestra's philosophy" on the website.
  The premises are totally false.
  According to Boyden,the orchestra was founded in 1992 to supposedly recreate the sounds of the music as they actually were(exptremely questionable assumption.
  "Until the 1950s,orchestras were a living art form"(and they're not today?). Supposedly, each orchestra had its own sound.(They still do). (I'm paraphrasing). The orchestras of Paris and Toulouse sounded different,as well as the different London orchestras.Today,because of the standardization of instruments and recording,all or most orchestras sound alike,with a few exceptions.
(Totally false.,It's impossible for orchestras to sound alike as they consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concerthalls with different acoustics).
  We need to recreate the individuality and spontaneity of past performances.(This is pure idealizationof th epast).
  Back in the 50s too 70s when I was a recording engineer,it was very difficult to balance orchestras because of the excessively loud brass.
  The orchestras of today are "High-powered and ruthless machines"(ridiculous generalization).
  The New Queens hall orch"restores the balances lacking today, and the the "colorful and expressive" playing of the past.(Really now).
The modernb orchestra has detached itself completely from th epast.(Oh come on now). The steel strings prevent orchestras today rom getting that sound.
(sure).


The great orchestra needs to be appreciated across the whole world so that the great music may once again speak to people everywhere
anticipated by the great composers.
   If you believe this,I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Puh-leeeeze!!!!!!!!!!

[Bulldog]

   I just chgcked the New Queens hall orchestra's website,and here are some of the ridiculous statements made by its manager John Boyden,and the statement of the "orchestra's philosophy" on the website.
  The premises are totally false.
  According to Boyden,the orchestra was founded in 1992 to supposedly recreate the sounds of the music as they actually were(exptremely questionable assumption.
  "Until the 1950s,orchestras were a living art form"(and they're not today?). Supposedly, each orchestra had its own sound.(They still do). (I'm paraphrasing). The orchestras of Paris and Toulouse sounded different,as well as the different London orchestras.Today,because of the standardization of instruments and recording,all or most orchestras sound alike,with a few exceptions.
(Totally false.,It's impossible for orchestras to sound alike as they consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concerthalls with different acoustics).
  We need to recreate the individuality and spontaneity of past performances.(This is pure idealizationof th epast).
  Back in the 50s too 70s when I was a recording engineer,it was very difficult to balance orchestras because of the excessively loud brass.
  The orchestras of today are "High-powered and ruthless machines"(ridiculous generalization).
  The New Queens hall orch"restores the balances lacking today, and the the "colorful and expressive" playing of the past.(Really now).
The modernb orchestra has detached itself completely from th epast.(Oh come on now). The steel strings prevent orchestras today rom getting that sound.
(sure).


The great orchestra needs to be appreciated across the whole world so that the great music may once again speak to people everywhere
anticipated by the great composers.
   If you believe this,I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Puh-leeeeze!!!!!!!!!!

What's the name of the bridge and what's your price?  Also, I'd need to see the documents that prove your ownership before considering a deal.  A recent inspection report would be necessary as well.

As for your other comments, I can't see what infuriates you.

[jochanaan]

   I just chgcked the New Queens hall orchestra's website,and here are some of the ridiculous statements made by its manager John Boyden,and the statement of the "orchestra's philosophy" on the website.
  The premises are totally false.
  According to Boyden,the orchestra was founded in 1992 to supposedly recreate the sounds of the music as they actually were(exptremely questionable assumption.
  "Until the 1950s,orchestras were a living art form"(and they're not today?). Supposedly, each orchestra had its own sound.(They still do). (I'm paraphrasing). The orchestras of Paris and Toulouse sounded different,as well as the different London orchestras.Today,because of the standardization of instruments and recording,all or most orchestras sound alike,with a few exceptions.
(Totally false.,It's impossible for orchestras to sound alike as they consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concerthalls with different acoustics).
  We need to recreate the individuality and spontaneity of past performances.(This is pure idealizationof th epast).
  Back in the 50s too 70s when I was a recording engineer,it was very difficult to balance orchestras because of the excessively loud brass.
  The orchestras of today are "High-powered and ruthless machines"(ridiculous generalization).
  The New Queens hall orch"restores the balances lacking today, and the the "colorful and expressive" playing of the past.(Really now).
The modernb orchestra has detached itself completely from th epast.(Oh come on now). The steel strings prevent orchestras today rom getting that sound.
(sure).


The great orchestra needs to be appreciated across the whole world so that the great music may once again speak to people everywhere
anticipated by the great composers.
   If you believe this,I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Puh-leeeeze!!!!!!!!!!

So how do they play?

[BMW]

Enough for a nice little shopping basket? 

Yes I think so  --- thank you!  Will take some time later this afternoon to pick a few and have them shipped ahead of me to school so I will have a little new music this semester.  My first purchases as a direct result of this forum!

[Coopmv]

I continue to think HIP should not necessarily exclude the use of modern instruments in all cases ...

[Chaszz]

I have just one concern to state. Please forgive me if this has already been addressed, as I don't currently have enough time to read through the whole thread. I'd like to know if there is any evidence for the fast tempos of HIP performances being historically accurate. From an esthetic perspective, some of the recent performances of, for example, Bach strike me as excessively light and fast, and don't give the music the proper weight and time to unfold its thoughts and beauties. I feel pity for those younger listeners who must miss some of the profundities of these complex musical ideas which rush by so fast one cannot really hear them. Alternatively, from a technical rather than esthetic viewpoint, in the 18th century there were instruments more difficult to play and performance standards which may or may not have been lower than today's, depending on which duchy a musician played in. Simply because there were less people overall and not 50 instrumentalists waiting in line for each job as there are today in our hyper-trained environment. It seems to me that in this perhaps more difficult skills environment, composers would have been leaning toward more moderate tempos rather than virtuoso fast ones. Is this emphasis on pretty fast tempos simply a knee-jerk overreaction to the ponderousness of late Romantic-era interpretations of Baroque and Classical era works? ...Anyway, I would appreciate some informed comment on this fast tempo issue.   

[Superhorn]

  Chassz,some musicologists agree the the ultra-fast,lean-and-mean,
flippantly breezy HIP performances are not really authentic at all,and that any performances of say,Bach's music during his day(and there weren't all that many of them) would actually have been slower and more reflective.  You may be right !
  Yes,there has been a backlash against ponderous and turgid old fashioned performances on modern instruments,but many HIP musicians have gone too far in the opposite direction.

[False_Dmitry]

performances of say,Bach's music during his day(and there weren't all that many of them) would actually have been slower and more reflective.

Who are these "musicologists", and on the basis of WHAT exactly do they say Bach's own performances would have been "more reflective" than performances he never heard 250 years later?  Hello?

[Brahmsian]

Who are these "musicologists", and on the basis of WHAT exactly do they say Bach's own performances would have been "more reflective" than performances he never heard 250 years later?  Hello?

They can infer from taking soil samples in Bach's yard.

[False_Dmitry]

They can infer from taking soil samples in Bach's yard.

   

[Chaszz]

  Chassz,some musicologists agree the the ultra-fast,lean-and-mean,
flippantly breezy HIP performances are not really authentic at all,and that any performances of say,Bach's music during his day(and there weren't all that many of them) would actually have been slower and more reflective.  You may be right !
  Yes,there has been a backlash against ponderous and turgid old fashioned performances on modern instruments,but many HIP musicians have gone too far in the opposite direction.

I welcome your support for my view. But I must say there were many performances of Bach's music in his lifetime. At Cothen, the prince was a music enthusiast, and Cappellmeister Bach led many instrumental performances, perhaps almost nightly. No TV then. At Leipzig, his cantatas were performed every Sunday in two major churches, and his Passions and Oratorios were put on regularly. In his older years he led weekly concerts at Zimmerman's coffee house. The main difference between then and now was that, except for a small circle of enthusiasts in Leipzig, mainly among academics, he had almost no appreciation of his ability as a composer. What renown he had rested on his keyboard performing ability and his consulting practice on instrument construction. 

[Brahmsian]

Ok, time for me to be serious.

Quite frankly, I think the whole HIP or not HIP performance criteria, honestly gets in the way of enjoying the performances, and creates a bias for whichever side one tends to be with.  I think this bias works both ways.

[DavidRoss]

I have just one concern to state. Please forgive me if this has already been addressed, as I don't currently have enough time to read through the whole thread. I'd like to know if there is any evidence for the fast tempos of HIP performances being historically accurate. From an esthetic perspective, some of the recent performances of, for example, Bach strike me as excessively light and fast, and don't give the music the proper weight and time to unfold its thoughts and beauties.

I'm sure no expert, but have no difficulty accepting the opinions of the many enthusiastic experts who have made the study of authentic baroque performance practice a specialty.  The ultimate arbiter of taste, of course, is one's own preferences: if it sounds good, it IS good.  Your preferences are perfectly valid and need no justification.

To paraphrase your own take on the matter: From an æsthetic perspective, some of the older performances of, for example, Bach strike me as excessively heavy and slow and don't give the music the proper character and vitality to unfold its dancing spirit and general joie de vivre.   

Here are links to some of Bernard Sherman's writings on the topic which you may find informative or at least interesting.  They include numerous references.

http://www.bsherman.net/bachtempo.htm
http://www.bsherman.net/bminormass.htm
http://www.bsherman.net/encyclopedia.html

[Brahmsian]

I should add that:  HIP or not HIP should have absolutely no bearing on whether you actually enjoy the music or not.  Excluding the factoring in of period instruments, how could you tell?

Period instruments, however, can definitely have a factor.

[Scarpia]

HIP is extremely important because of the insight it gives to what the composer intended.  That doesn't mean it is wrong to want to hear something as the composer did not intend or foresee.  It also doesn't mean there weren't various performance styles used even in Bach's time.   But Bach was a fairly smart guy, and I think his music normally sounds best when played as he intended.   I find myself listing mostly to HIP in Bach, non-HIP is a guilty pleasure.

[Brahmsian]

I should add that:  HIP or not HIP should have absolutely no bearing on whether you actually enjoy the music or not.  Excluding the factoring in of period instruments, how could you tell?

OK, I'm thinking my logic on this is now wrong, but do tell.....How (besides the use or exclusion of period instruments) could you tell what is a HIP vs. non-HIP performance (blind hearing test)?

[Scarpia]

OK, I'm thinking my logic on this is now wrong, but do tell.....How (besides the use or exclusion of period instruments) could you tell what is a HIP vs. non-HIP performance (blind hearing test)?

Use of appropriate forces (no 100 voice choirs, so sections of 20 violins).  Appropriate use of vibrato, bowing style, etc.  The distinction is blurred because conventional performers have learned from the HIP movement in incorporate some of its wisdom by default these days.