The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Leon]

    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 ?

So far you've offered quotes from two conductors as emblematic of the mindset for all HIP/PI musicians.  Not that it matters, since there are assinine conductors working in all styles and what they say is of less interest than what the music sounds like from their recordings.  I usually like Herreweghe, but don't listen to much beyond 1830 from him, although his Faure Requiem was very good.

I don't think HIP/PI performances of music beyond the early 19th century nearly as interesting as the earlier periods.  Once you get past the Classical period, I find the basis of the argument begins to lose credibility; but these guys have to extend their reach otherwise they'd run out of music.  So, HIP/PI Mahler or Bruckner?  Not only am I not interested in that venture, I am not much interested in any recordings of those composers by any orchestra or conductors.

I have an idea: why don't you pay less attention to the statements of conductors working in the HIP/PI world and more attention to the music coming from their performances.  I find it much more rewarding to ignore interviews and concentrate on the sound of the recordings.  I almost never read an interview with a conductor.

[DavidW]

I don't think HIP/PI performances of music beyond the early 19th century nearly as interesting as the earlier periods. 

Yeah I agree with that and would go further.  I think that for every baroque era work that one likes, one owes it to themselves to hear a PI recording because it's so fundamentally different from the MI recodings of old.  For classical era music, the PI recordings are interesting, and usually different but I enjoy MI recordings as much.  But once we get into the very late classical era, early romantic era I start to prefer modern instrument recordings.  By the time we get into composers like Mahler the PI proposition is met with a raised eyebrow.

Superhorn knows this too.  He picks Mahler and Bruckner when the PI Bach recordings would cover all late romantic PI recordings like an avalanche.  But he focuses on it just like anti-modernists focus on the Stockhausen Helicopter Quartet as if it typified all 20th and 21st century music.  And I used this example in particular because I know that he likes modern music, and is probably irritated when the anti-modernites use some strange work to belittle an entire century of music making.  Someday he will realize that is what he is doing.

[Que]

I don't think HIP/PI performances of music beyond the early 19th century nearly as interesting as the earlier periods. Once you get past the Classical period, I find the basis of the argument begins to lose credibility; but these guys have to extend their reach otherwise they'd run out of music.  So, HIP/PI Mahler or Bruckner?  Not only am I not interested in that venture, I am not much interested in any recordings of those composers by any orchestra or conductors.

I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  ) - YES please!

Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.

And in terms of performance: just compare Mahler recordings of Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom got their Mahler knowledge first hand, with later "modern" performances and anyone can figure out that something funny is going on.... The use of portamenti is supposedly "old fashioned" and dated, but you'd better use them (judiciously) in a Mahler performance!  And then the pace: Mahler has been performed so slow after WWII that it's simply ridiculous. (As is of course Norrington's assertion that as little vibrato as possible is required.)
So even in Mahler an historically informed approach would be able to do a world of good IMHO.

I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross over into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition. And it looks like that is what we are going to get - another positive influence of the HIP movement that started with Early and Baroque music: musical performances are becoming more "period conscious" in general.

Q

[Gurn Blanston]

I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  ) - YES please!

Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.

And in terms of performance: just compare Mahler recordings of Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom got their Mahler knowledge first hand, with later "modern" performances and anyone can figure out that something funny is going on.... The use of portamenti is supposedly "old fashioned" and dated, but you'd better use them (judiciously) in a Mahler performance!  And then the pace: Mahler has been performed so slow after WWII that it's simply ridiculous. (As is of course Norrington's assertion that as little vibrato as possible is required.)
So even in Mahler an historically informed approach would be able to do a wold of good IMHO.

I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition. And it looks like that is what we are going to get - another positive influence of the HIP movement that started with Early and Baroque music: musical performances are becoming more "period conscious" in general.

Q

It seems like people are once again mixing up 'period instrument' with 'historically informed'. I agree with the seeming majority here that 'period instruments' are of little import with late Romantic music (although away from orchestral music, I love the Dvorak disk I have played on Dvorak's own piano. What a beautiful sounding instrument!). But there is never a time, from Baroque to Bloch, when you can afford to lose sight of period style if you want to make the most of the music.



----------------
Now playing:
Esterhazy Ensemble - Hob 11 021 Trio in A for Baryton, Viola & Cello Book 1 1st mvmt - Moderato

[Roberto]

I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  ) - YES please!

From Beethoven's time I enjoy both type performances but before Beethoven I prefer HIP performances on old instruments. Beethoven is an extraordinary composer because his music sounds so well on modern instruments and old instruments also (and in modern performances and HIP performances also). But Mozart's (forte)piano sonatas sounds almost childish on a modern concert grand for me (even in a good performance). But on a fortepiano (in a good performance also): sounds just right and I love these. (Robert Levin has a good video on youtube about the sonatas and differences of pianos.)

Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.

It is funny to read about Mengelberg in a HIP topic.  But you're absolutely right. I love the extensive rubatos also. Somebody noticed that at the modern era there is a problem: standardized orchestras conducted by standardized conductors. The best HIP players, singers and conductors started to use their imagination based on research. It is a great evolution (ironically back to the past) and I hope it will continue.

I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross over into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition.

I hope it will successful.

[DavidW]

Que, I would like to hear performers tackle Mahler, Bruckner etc in the romantic style of old instead of either the baroque period style or the modern post-Stravinsky style.  I think that there needs to be a great rediscovery of how to play romantic era music.

[Leon]

I agree to some extent. But the piano and chamber music recordings I've heard on period instruments tell a different story! Schumann, Brahms, Chopin - plenty of Romantic music that needs a thourough rethinking on performance practice and use of instruments IMO. Brahms piano music on period pianos (not fortepiano, naturally  ) - YES please!

Mahler, a late-Romantic that on the face of it can be performed by any symphony orchestra. But I tell you that the wooden drums with natural skin from Mengelberg's time that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra uses, sound a lot better than the plastic &*^% some other orchestras use.

And in terms of performance: just compare Mahler recordings of Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom got their Mahler knowledge first hand, with later "modern" performances and anyone can figure out that something funny is going on.... The use of portamenti is supposedly "old fashioned" and dated, but you'd better use them (judiciously) in a Mahler performance!  And then the pace: Mahler has been performed so slow after WWII that it's simply ridiculous. (As is of course Norrington's assertion that as little vibrato as possible is required.)
So even in Mahler an historically informed approach would be able to do a wold of good IMHO.

I think the main problem with HIPPI recordings of Romantic repertoire is that in most cases the are made by conductors who have specialized in Baroque music and are now trying to cross over into Romantic territory. Some of them might not be natural Mahler or Bruckner conductors. What we need is a new generation of conductors of the main symphonic orchestras who try to recover the Romantic tradition. And it looks like that is what we are going to get - another positive influence of the HIP movement that started with Early and Baroque music: musical performances are becoming more "period conscious" in general.

Q

Okay, point taken.  I guess what I am thinking is that Brahms played on a modern piano is not so far from what he would have expected the pianos of his day too be like. 

As far as orchestral music I completely agree that performance practice of the late 19th/early 20th century is something to consider when approaching this music if you want to give a HIP performance.  However, my original statement was that I don't find HIP Romantic recordings as interesting, to me, as older periods.  However, I have a very enjoyable disc of Smithsonian Chamber Players/Kenneth Slowik doing the Mahler Adagietto From Symphony No.5 and Verklakte Nacht using what he claims is late 19th century practice, e.g. judicious portamenti, and it is very interesting.  I would like to hear some PI Brahms chamber works - that I have never experienced and it would be instructive to do so.

[mszczuj]

The main reason for HIP is not choising of instruments but reading the notes, I suppose.

[Marc]

[....]
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.
[....]

Let's remain silent then about the arrogance of non HIP-PI's, OK?

Or, let's remain silent about artists and musicians in general.

Almost any artist thinks his/her way is the right way. And let's be happy with that, because otherwise their performances would be uninspired anyway. What to expect from a concert with musicians who think well actually this is wrong?.

For the rest: I myself am so arrogant that I've come to the point that I find debates like these completely obsolete. At a certain point, certain musicians began to try to perform older music on (copies of) older instruments that the composer had in mind whilst writing it. And they began to read the actual sources of that particular time about performing and interpreting and they tried to give the listener an idea of what it might have sounded like in the early days. Apparantly, after some years of trying the result has been good enough to entertain many music lovers. And now, HIP is just a fact. And, as in non-HIP, and as in any art, there are good and bad artists and performers.

What's new?

[mszczuj]

And the appropriate question is not how have it sounded but what is it about.

[Marc]

The main reason for HIP is not choising of instruments but reading the notes, I suppose.

Not entirely.
It's reading the notes of the oldest sources possible, it's reading the contemporary sources about interpretation and it's playing on (copies of) contemporary instruments.
Recently I read about sources concerning the fingering in 17th and 18th keyboard music. The differences with what I've learned during my own piano lessons (and what has become common practice since the 19th century) are much larger than I ever expected. F.i. almost no use of the thumb, using the same finger for successive different notes which makes legato impossible, et cetera. Also things like bows and phrases in many old music sheets have been changed and 'improved' (because of new insights and standards) during the years by copiists and publishers.

[Marc]

And the appropriate question is not how have it sounded but what is it about.

Yes.
One of the appropriate questions.
But this would mean that the listener is also obliged to learn about contemporary and historical background. Because listeners still ask after hearing arias like Ich folge dir gleichfalls mit freudigen Schritten (Bach's Johannes-Passion): what's the point of being happy about the fact that one's friend is taken prisoner?

[mc ukrneal]

It seems like people are once again mixing up 'period instrument' with 'historically informed'. I agree with the seeming majority here that 'period instruments' are of little import with late Romantic music (although away from orchestral music, I love the Dvorak disk I have played on Dvorak's own piano. What a beautiful sounding instrument!). But there is never a time, from Baroque to Bloch, when you can afford to lose sight of period style if you want to make the most of the music.

Yes - this is why I have not jumped in. I think it is almost unimportant what instruments are used. If it is played well, it is played well. If not, it's not.  The sound of the instruments (and thus which ones picked) will be a purely personal preference. In the extreme, I could care less if my Bach is played on the instruments used during Bach's time, Beethoven's time or our time. But I do care that the conducter (and as an extension the players) has thought about how best to play the piece so that their playing has an emotional, physical and/or psychological impact on me.

Others care more than I do and seem to extraoplate that players on 'period' instruments have more to say than those of modern instruments. I disagree with that. But we are generally so spoiled for choice that there is something for everyone. And even if one has a preference for a certain sound, if it is played well it probably won't matter much. The music will have an impact on the listener.

[Opus106]

And the appropriate question is not how have it sounded but what is it about.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what is it about", but if it is referring to what the music/composer was trying to communicate to the listener, a lot of Baroque and Classical composers weren't particularly communicating anything a la Beethoven, so in those cases, it's just about the playing and sound, I suppose. In any case, the sound is (was?) is as much the part of the allure as is the interpretation, if not more.

[DavidW]

However, I have a very enjoyable disc of Smithsonian Chamber Players/Kenneth Slowik doing the Mahler Adagietto From Symphony No.5 and Verklakte Nacht using what he claims is late 19th century practice, e.g. judicious portamenti, and it is very interesting.

Sounds cool Leon, I've added it to my playlist on nml and will let you know I think.

[Marc]

Yes - this is why I have not jumped in. I think it is almost unimportant what instruments are used. If it is played well, it is played well. If not, it's not.  The sound of the instruments (and thus which ones picked) will be a purely personal preference. In the extreme, I could care less if my Bach is played on the instruments used during Bach's time, Beethoven's time or our time. But I do care that the conducter (and as an extension the players) has thought about how best to play the piece so that their playing has an emotional, physical and/or psychological impact on me.

Others care more than I do and seem to extraoplate that players on 'period' instruments have more to say than those of modern instruments. I disagree with that. But we are generally so spoiled for choice that there is something for everyone. And even if one has a preference for a certain sound, if it is played well it probably won't matter much. The music will have an impact on the listener.

I like your last sentence!

But to me, there's a great difference between Bach on a Steinway and Bach on a Zell harpsichord.

[Marc]

I have a very enjoyable disc of Smithsonian Chamber Players/Kenneth Slowik doing the Mahler Adagietto From Symphony No.5 and Verklakte Nacht using what he claims is late 19th century practice, e.g. judicious portamenti, and it is very interesting. 

Sounds cool Leon, I've added it to my playlist on nml and will let you know I think.

I have a DVD on which Chailly is rehearsing with the Concertgebouw Orkest. He used the Mengelberg scores and was also reintroducing portamenti, whilst nodding in agreement "I like that, I like that."

[mc ukrneal]

I like your last sentence!

But to me, there's a great difference between Bach on a Steinway and Bach on a Zell harpsichord.

That's true. I would agree with you. But we might disagree with which has the greater impact on the listener!

[Marc]

That's true. I would agree with you. But we might disagree with which has the greater impact on the listener!

It depends on the listener, I guess.
But for sure, they both do have at least an impact.

[prémont]

Others care more than I do and seem to extraoplate that players on 'period' instruments have more to say than those of modern instruments.

Not at all. The problem IMO is, that players on modern instruments often have got too much to say.