The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Que]

Yup.  Superhorn's misinformed arguments never change.  What I do wonder is why he continues to rail at windmills.  Nobody forces the man to listen to PI performances.  He just needs to understand that many folks enjoy PI and it's never going away.

I bet that Superhorn owns AND enjoys one or more recordings with a natural horn.

So maybe things don't sound that bad on period instruments...

Q

[Superhorn]

    You guys just aren't getting my points. I'm not opposed to period instruments per se, and I have enjoyed some of them.
    In addition, I do have some HIP recordings by Norrington and Gardiner etc.  Among them are Norrington's Symphonie Fantastique
  (a questionable performance) and Gardiner's German requiem(good but in no way better than the non HIP performances I've heard etc.)
      I just don't have any objections to performances on modern instruments,and after hearing so many HIP ones, I actually find it refreshong to come back to those allegedly awful and "inauthentic" ones.     
    I like some performances using natural horns, and I have tried out one myself in the past.It was certainly a very interesting experience,
and I'm glad I was able to do this. 
    For the last time ; I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se,and I HAVE enjoyed SOME of them.  But others were just awful, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  But having grown up since my teenage years without period instruments,I just don't find them better than modern.
   I stand by what I said about the questionable premises of HIP.

[Leon]

For the last time ; I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se,and I HAVE enjoyed SOME of them.  But others were just awful, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

I would not attitbute this to "premises of HIP" but to the individual conductor and/or performer(s) of a work that you found less than enjoyable.  We all have our preferences, and some recordings strike us as less than good, no matter what instruments or performance approach are being used.  What does that prove other than taste is subjective?

But having grown up since my teenage years without period instruments,I just don't find them better than modern.   I stand by what I said about the questionable premises of HIP.

No one, at least not I, insist that you or anyone must, should, or has inferior taste if they do not prefer HIP/PI performances more than those on modern instruments.  But, I daresay it is questionable if there are "premises of HIP" that the practitioners would all agree on and employ uniformly in their recordings.

Everything you write about HIP/PI recordings, btw, could just as easily be said about the other kind.

[Superhorn]

    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

[Gurn Blanston]

    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

Some of us more than others, possibly.

But the fact that you stand by your assertions doesn't make them any more valid. I agree with you that playing on old instruments does not, by itself, guarantee anything. And I also add to that the obvious corollary that playing on modern instruments doesn't either. Beyond that we do not agree on anything at all. Which would be perfectly fine if I hadn't already heard you side of the argument 50 times over. I'm sure you would find it aggravating too if, every time you mentioned a composer/work, someone went around and attempted to disenfranchise the total premise that the performance was based on. Especially when he/she was only semi-informed. But hey, it's a free country.



----------------
Now playing:
Das Wiener Philharmonia Trio - Hob 05 17 Divertimento á tre in Eb for 2 Violins & Bass 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[Leon]

    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

We don't need a time machine.  We have enough scholarship of performance practice and a fairly complete knowledge of instrument makers in order to come to a reasonably full understanding of what would have been typical for, say, Haydn to expect when writing for string quartet, or the symphonic forces he had at his disposal, and the kinds of keyboards he used and wrote for throughout his life.

Where I think you go down a dead end is twofold:

1. alleging that HIP/PI performance practice is monolithic

2. that HIP/PI "set of premises" are based on pure speculation and not solid research.

As for #1, consider this: both the Mosaiques and Festetics quartets have recorded Haydn string quartets.  They do not sound alike, and some PI folks clearly have a preference for one over the other.  Which one is employing your set of HIP premises?

As for #2, I think I addressed it earlier.

[Opus106]

    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.

To tell you the truth, I came into HIP by reading misinformed articles/posts and believing in this authenticity business. It was after reading some more that I came to know that HIPsters don't actually guarantee 100% authenticity, but usually try their best in recreating the piece as the composer intended it. But that didn't deter me from listening to period instruments. I've grown to love their sound (though not always, and not for the reasons you state); the rhythms become more 'danceable' when I listen to some Baroque music played in an 'informed' manner; and most important of all, I can imagine wonderfully ornate courtrooms, coffee houses or simply a room in a house with like-minded musicians bubbling with music, and not a darkened concert hall stifled by dusty traditions which have cropped up in the interim.

Having said that, you must realise that no PI performer would guarantee you that he is 100% authentic -- this being 2011, and not 1958, the fact should be obvious, but it's worth repeating, I think. There are, of course, different proponents of performing styles who strongly hold to their opinion against others' -- and this fact in itself should readily show that authenticity has not been (cannot be?) achieved. They simply don't stick to the score either. A visit to the Bach Organ thread or harpsichord music threads will show you how widely interpretations vary and how ideologies differ between artists -- just as in the case of players of modern instruments. There are many issues which are still unsettled and widely debated, and no one involved is trying to make a secret out of them. You, on the other hand, I'm sorry to say, make it sound almost like some sort of corporate conspiracy where you were fooled in to buying/attending hundreds of recordings/concerts solely on the basis of some promised authenticity.

[Opus106]

I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

Time machines, if they come to be, will likely be based on the premises of quantum mechanics at least in part. You surely will not get into one if you know what they are!

[Bulldog]

To tell you the truth, I came into HIP by reading misinformed articles/posts and believing in this authenticity business. It was after reading some more that I came to know that HIPsters don't actually guarantee 100% authenticity, but usually try their best in recreating the piece as the composer intended it. But that didn't deter me from listening to period instruments. I've grown to love their sound (though not always, and not for the reasons you state); the rhythms become more 'danceable' when I listen to some Baroque music played in an 'informed' manner; and most important of all, I can imagine wonderfully ornate courtrooms, coffee houses or simply a room in a house with like-minded musicians bubbling with music, and not a darkened concert hall stifled by dusty traditions which have cropped up in the interim.

I also find that's the most important aspect of using period instruments, to be taken back in time to, say, Bach's music room.  A piano can't do that; the same for modern strings, winds and brass.

[Bulldog]

    A time machine hasn't been invented yet.  I won't believe with any certainty that any period instrument performances are "authentic"
until I can go back in one and find out how close we have actually come to recreating the music of the past as it actually sounded.
I sure wish we had one. We ,might be very surprised if we could actually go back in time.

You're being much too rigid about the "authentic" issue.  Authenticity for its own sake is not why so many listeners have been won over by period instrument performances; the reason is that they ENJOY the music more with PI. 

[karlhenning]

Any questions aside, the HIP movement has definitely added value to the music community.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I also find that's the most important aspect of using period instruments, to be taken back in time to, say, Bach's music room.  A piano can't do that; the same for modern strings, winds and brass.

I think Bach would be more than happy to have us bring a few modern instruments along with us when we visit him!

And likewise we could bring a few of his instruments back with us so we can finally put all this controversy to bed!

[DavidW]

I would like to take Bach to the present time... have him listen to classical era, romantic era, modern era and beyond... and then see what he would write.

It's a neat little thing to think what if we could take great composers like him, or Beethoven or Mozart and expose their ears to newer music and see where they would go with it.

[Superhorn]

    Leon, you're setting up a number of straw men here. I never said that "HIP is a monolithic thing, and have always been aware that it isn't.
    Of course not all musicologists and  HIP agree on how to interpret the music. 
    And neither did I say that HIP is based on "pure speculation and not solid research".  Of course it's based on research, but not all that research is solid, and there IS quite a bit of speculation involved .   
     The besetting sin of the HIP movement is the blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners.  Many arrogantly claim to have found "the one right way to perform the music of the past"  and self- servingly and smugly  think they are "  scraping away all the barnacles" of inauthenticity. 
    People like Roger Norrington are insufferably arrogant and smug about their supposed "authenticity".  How does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ? 
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   
    For example, his recent performances of Mahler have  featured  vibratoless styring playing , which he assumes to be "authentic  performance practice" in  this composer's music.    But he is apparently unaware of this fact.   Back in 1960, when the centennial of Mahler's birth was observed, an aged string player in the New York Philharmonic under Mahler who was still alive,was interviewed .
    He said that at rehearsals , the composer was always asking for more vibrato from the  strings !   So much for Norrington's "authenticity ". 
      Many musicians talk about "the composer's intentions".  But the problem with this term is that the composer's intentions are NOT
carved in stone .   They change their minds. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Supe,
Since you addressed that to Leon, plus I'm worn out, I won't do a point-by-point rebuttal of your post. I would like to make a couple of rebuttals though, since they are germane and I can't help myself. 

1>

How does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ?
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   

In reality (which is important to touch base with from time to time), it doesn't make a damn whether these are things "the composer would have approved of". How could you possibly know that one way or the other? And how can it possibly be relevant?  What, do you picture a composer sitting there gazing into a crystal ball and saying "oh look, by 1850 the orchestra was 3 times larger. Let's write this symphony to take advantage of that".  I mean, I can't come up with a single credible scenario that would cover what you are saying here. What you really mean (and you may not know this yourself, perhaps it's time for some soul-searching) is that YOU like it that way, so you would be happy to justify your liking by some sort of twisting of the laws of science, particularly the one that says "Time is an arrow, it only moves in one direction". 

2> Norrington's a freakin' crank: OK, I agree with you (at least in part). Every movement has someone they prefer to keep in the closet. I will outrage a lot of people here when I say that post-Romantic performance practice had its crank too, Sergiu Celibidache. To which I would add Böhm in his late career. There's 2, I could name more without straining.  In any case, I challenge you to find even a single devotée of HIP/PI who doesn't already understand up front that Norrington is a little bit off. Oh, and let me just say that he didn't come up with all that shit on his own, those theories were first propounded by a fellow named Clive Brown and later he and Norrington wrote a book about it called "Classical and Romantic Performing Practice". The ideas themselves are justifiable in some ways, but in practice, Norrington went right over the edge. Since I couldn't care less if Mahler is ever performed at all, I can't really comment on the results. I did understand that at the time they were produced, it was a totally experimental thing and everyone involved knew that.

Leon may indeed be setting up straw men, although I don't think so. The fact that you mention once a year (as a contractual disclaimer??) that you really really love HIP, you just hate all the records, doesn't translate into straw men for me. The fact that you feel that in some way you have been ordered to do something and been duped by it concerns me a lot, I fear that sort of paranoia is a bad sign for your old age. I would love to see you open your mind a little bit and try some things with a nonjudgmental attitude. It may not be too late for you (although I fear it is).



----------------
Now playing:
Anthony Halstead, Hanover Band - Hob 01 031 Symphony in D 4th mvmt - Finale: Moderato molto - Thema e variazioni I - VII: Presto

[DavidW]

Norrington's Mahler is as inappropriate for characterizing period style performances as Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet is for modern music.

When HIPsters defend period style performances they are thinking of Herreweghe, Jacobs, Hogwood, Gardiner, Kuijken, etc etc conducting baroque and classical era music.  When anti-HIPsters attack period style performances they are always thinking of Norrington's Mahler.

[Bulldog]

     The besetting sin of the HIP movement is the blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners.  Many arrogantly claim to have found "the one right way to perform the music of the past"  and self- servingly and smugly  think they are "  scraping away all the barnacles" of inauthenticity. 
    People like Roger Norrington are insufferably arrogant and smug about their supposed "authenticity".  How does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ? 
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   
    For example, his recent performances of Mahler have  featured  vibratoless styring playing , which he assumes to be "authentic  performance practice" in  this composer's music.    But he is apparently unaware of this fact.   Back in 1960, when the centennial of Mahler's birth was observed, an aged string player in the New York Philharmonic under Mahler who was still alive,was interviewed .
    He said that at rehearsals , the composer was always asking for more vibrato from the  strings !   So much for Norrington's "authenticity ". 
      Many musicians talk about "the composer's intentions".  But the problem with this term is that the composer's intentions are NOT
carved in stone .   They change their minds.

Every movement has its dogmatic practitioners.  The problem, as I see it, is that you want to focus on the dogmatic folks who represent only a small fraction of all those who love HIP/PI.  Actually, you continue to just focus on one dogmatic person, Norrington. 

You have an anti-HIP mind set that colors the entire issue.

[Leon]

    Leon, you're setting up a number of straw men here. I never said that "HIP is a monolithic thing, and have always been aware that it isn't.
    Of course not all musicologists and  HIP agree on how to interpret the music. 
    And neither did I say that HIP is based on "pure speculation and not solid research".  Of course it's based on research, but not all that research is solid, and there IS quite a bit of speculation involved .   
     The besetting sin of the HIP movement is the blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners.  Many arrogantly claim to have found "the one right way to perform the music of the past"  and self- servingly and smugly  think they are "  scraping away all the barnacles" of inauthenticity. 
    People like Roger Norrington are insufferably arrogant and smug about their supposed "authenticity".  How does he presume to know exactly what composers such as Mozart,Beethoven,Haydn, Schubert,Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler wanted ? 
    How does he know that  the  "barnacles" of "encrusted tradition"  he is allegedly "sweeping away"  are not things these composers would have approved of ?   
    For example, his recent performances of Mahler have  featured  vibratoless styring playing , which he assumes to be "authentic  performance practice" in  this composer's music.    But he is apparently unaware of this fact.   Back in 1960, when the centennial of Mahler's birth was observed, an aged string player in the New York Philharmonic under Mahler who was still alive,was interviewed .
    He said that at rehearsals , the composer was always asking for more vibrato from the  strings !   So much for Norrington's "authenticity ". 
      Many musicians talk about "the composer's intentions".  But the problem with this term is that the composer's intentions are NOT
carved in stone .   They change their minds.

It is correct that you never said explicitly that HIP is monolithic, but most of your posts, including this one, say this implicitly.

Unless you can link me to those comments you put in quotes and support your claim of "blatant dogmatism of so many of its practitioners" (as opposed to one or two people saying that kind of stuff) I will treat that part of your post as hyperbole, which it is.

As I understand the HIP/PI proponents what they are attempting is to present the music as if the intervening centuries had not taken place.  IOW, to play Haydn using his customary orchestra instead of Mahler's.  Yes, there is some speculation, e.g. deciding correct tempos.  One cannot simply use those marked  in the score since they were made relative to current practice.  IOW, what andante signified in 1800 is different than what it means today, or what it meant in 1900.  Even Sibelius marked his scores with marks that would indicate a faster tempo because he felt that most conductors of his day used slower tempos than what Sibelius thought the markings indicated.  But, tempo is also influenced by the kind of instrument used or the size of the orchestra. 

These are just two examples concerning one element, tempo, offering reasons why some musicians prefer to adopt a HIP/PI performance practice.  We can never completely know a composer's intentions, but we can learn as much as possible about the performance practices and ensembles of his age in order to understand the scores relative to his expectations.  But it absolutely does not mean that this music cannot be played using modern instruments or orchestras to create a beautiful and meaningful result. 

You may not like the sound of a fortepiano or harpsichord and prefer to hear Haydn or Bach on a Steinway Concert Grand.  There is nothing wrong with that attitude.  But what comes through in your posts, and it is probably unintentional, is what appears to be an intolerance for those musicians who prefer something else. 

[Superhorn]

    You rarely come across an HIP musician who has the honesty and humility to say that well", this latest performance of Whatever I've just done or recorded is my best guess as to how the music might have been performed in the past and what the composer would have wanted ".
    The HIP performances and recordings I've heard(and I've heard an awful lot of them) aren't as annoying to me as the smugness and arrogance of so many of the HIP musicians in interviews and commentary in CD booklets etc.
    For example, Philippe Herreweghe has made the stupefyingly idiotic claim that "the only music the modern instrument orchestra should  play is
by Stockhausen and Penderecki "  Huh ?   Modern instruments are "wrong " for Mahler, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev,Sibelius, Nielsen, Shostakovich,
Copland,Gershwin, Britten, Janacek, Martinu, Szymanowski , Roussel,  Dukas,  Respighi,  etc.  ?   
    Herreweghe has just come out with the first HIP recording of a Mahler symphony with the Champs Elysees orchestra, and appears to be heading for a complete cycle.   David Horowitz gave it a scathingly bad review at classicstoday.com, but I'll withhold judgement on it until I hear it .   I recently heard his HIP Bruckner 4th , and it was pretty good though not nearly as great as other Bruckner 4ths by such giants as karajan, Jochum,Klemperer, Boehm, Wand, and others.
     What will the HIP movement give us next ?   "Authentic" performances  of Ein Heldenleben, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel and Le Sacre Du Printemps, Petrushka and the Firebird ? 
    And the orchestra didn't sound any different form a modern instrument one,so what was the point of the whole thing ?

[DavidW]

    The HIP performances and recordings I've heard(and I've heard an awful lot of them)

Prove it, list several recordings you've heard, one from each era, and post your impressions of them.

    For example, Philippe Herreweghe has made the stupefyingly idiotic claim that "the only music the modern instrument orchestra should  play is
by Stockhausen and Penderecki "

Where does this quote come from?  The only place I could find it online was from your smug friends on cmg... this strongly suggests that the quote is fake.  Please give me the source of the quote or take it back.  I would like to see it in full context, this seemss like something deliberately taken out of context.  Bottomline: this smells of dishonesty.

Herreweghe has just come out with the first HIP recording of a Mahler symphony with the Champs Elysees orchestra, and appears to be heading for a complete cycle.   David Horowitz gave it a scathingly bad review at classicstoday.com, but I'll withhold judgement on it until I hear it .

It's Hurwitz, not Horowitz.   Another HIP Mahler recording that you have not heard attacked by the critic that is on a vindictive mission to attack all HIP romantic era recordings?  Why did you consider this to be ammo in your defense?

I recently heard his HIP Bruckner 4th , and it was pretty good though not nearly as great as other Bruckner 4ths by such giants as karajan, Jochum,Klemperer, Boehm, Wand, and others.

So not only did you like it, but you did not dismiss it compared to other contemporary recordings, you only value the best recordings on record more.  Awesome.   I must hear this recording!

    And the orchestra didn't sound any different form a modern instrument one,so what was the point of the whole thing ?

Ha!  I've heard Herreweghe's Faure Requiem and Franck's Symphony and if you really think that then you have lead ears!