The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Marc]

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

Or .... did, from a certain moment on, the composers have too much to say? Just because they thought they wore so much on their sleeves?

[Leon]

I think it is almost unimportant what instruments are used. If it is played well, it is played well. If not, it's not. 

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

I disagree that is unimportant what instruments are used since this has an impact on many aspects of the performance beyond simply the sound of the instruments.  Of course playing the music well is something all professional musicians have as a priority no matter what constitutes their performance philosophy.  But your second statement includes a rather large assumption, which I know I do not endorse, nor would I think many who consider themselves HIP/PI-ers would agree with.  Everyone I think agrees that both "schools" have much to say about the music, and bring unique experiences to bear on their performances.  But, there are other aspects which create the distinction which is where people come out on different sides of the argument.

For me it is primarily about the sound of the music.  I generally prefer period instruments and historically informed practice for the Baroque and Classical works, but that is not to say that I never listen to Bach on a Steinway, since Tureck's, for example, is one of my favorite recordings of the WTC.

[mc ukrneal]

I disagree that is unimportant what instruments are used since this has an impact on many aspects of the performance beyond simply the sound of the instruments.  Of course playing the music well is something all professional musicians have as a priority no matter what constitutes their performance philosophy.  But your second statement includes a rather large assumption, which I know I do not endorse, nor would I think many who consider themselves HIP/PI-ers would agree with.  Everyone I think agrees that both "schools" have much to say about the music, and bring unique experiences to bear on their performances.  But, there are other aspects which create the distinction which is where people come out on different sides of the argument.

For me it is primarily about the sound of the music.  I generally prefer period instruments and historically informed practice for the Baroque and Classical works, but that is not to say that I never listen to Bach on a Steinway, since Tureck's, for example, is one of my favorite recordings of the WTC.

I'm not sure I get that impression (referring to the bolded above). Looking back on some of this thread, it's hard to see that (then again, the arguments go all over the place here). If it is the case, it seems to me, there would not be so much fundamental disagreement on the HIP/PI issue. But the other aspects you refer to might - what did you have in mind?

I'm also a bit confused - I suspect I've missed a link or disctinction in your argument. You start by saying you disagree that the choice of instrument is unimportant since that impacts so much more than just the sound. Later, you say it is all about the sound. Could you clarify what you meant? It is interesting to see a statement that 'it is all about the sound' - I would not agree with that I think. I can live with sound issues if the interpretations bring enough to the table (up until a certain point anyway). But amazing sound without interpretation would only go so far. Or I have I missed your point?

[Leon]

I'm not sure I get that impression (referring to the bolded above). Looking back on some of this thread, it's hard to see that (then again, the arguments go all over the place here). If it is the case, it seems to me, there would not be so much fundamental disagreement on the HIP/PI issue. But the other aspects you refer to might - what did you have in mind?

I'm also a bit confused - I suspect I've missed a link or disctinction in your argument. You start by saying you disagree that the choice of instrument is unimportant since that impacts so much more than just the sound. Later, you say it is all about the sound. Could you clarify what you meant? It is interesting to see a statement that 'it is all about the sound' - I would not agree with that I think. I can live with sound issues if the interpretations bring enough to the table (up until a certain point anyway). But amazing sound without interpretation would only go so far. Or I have I missed your point?

Well, I am saying two things: 1) the choice of instruments is important for considerations other than sound; 2) according to my personal taste, the sound of the instruments is important since I generally prefer to hear a fortepiano, or other period appropriate instrument, instead of a modern piano, e.g., in Haydn Piano Trios and other Classical period works which feature a keyboard instrument.

While there may be some doctrinaire PI folks who insist that it is not only not to their taste, but incorrect to play Bach on a piano, I am not one of them, and would question the statement that there are many, if any, of that type on GMG.

[DavidRoss]

Not everyone agrees that both "schools" have valid things to say, or we wouldn't have some folks dissin' HIP/PI.  Other aspects would include pitch and volume--the latter affecting numbers and balance.

There's no inconsistency in saying that sound (timbre, I presume?) is not the only thing affected, but for listener "a" it is the most important thing.

Some of us are just happy that the HIP/PI movement has informed and enriched current practice.  I like the sound of gut strings; others claim they sound like screeching cats.  I also like modern instrument performances that have been informed by historical practice research, using fewer strings, for instance, when period appropriate.  But if someone else likes plush, thick upholstery in home furnishings, and I prefer Danish modern, I see no reason why we can't both enjoy what we like without trying to make the other fellow feel inferior...unless, of course, we are insecure in our own taste and seek somehow to validate it by denying the virtue of diversity and trashing the other fellow's preference.

[Bulldog]

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. 

Of course, excellent playing is very important.  However, I think it matters greatly what instruments are used.  For example, I want nothing to do with baroque music on modern string instruments (sounds awful to me).

[mc ukrneal]

Well, I am saying two things: 1) the choice of instruments is important for considerations other than sound; 2) according to my personal taste, the sound of the instruments is important since I generally prefer to hear a fortepiano, or other period appropriate instrument, instead of a modern piano, e.g., in Haydn Piano Trios and other Classical period works which feature a keyboard instrument.

While there may be some doctrinaire PI folks who insist that it is not only not to their taste, but incorrect to play Bach on a piano, I am not one of them, and would question the statement that there are many, if any, of that type on GMG.

Ah I see now (along with what DavidRoss wrote) with #1 and #2.

As to the other, I think there are people on both sides who do seem to be claiming that one cannot get as much out of the music via the other instrument choices. In reality, what I think they really mean to say (or imply) is that by using one set of instruments you are sacrificing certain aspects in the sound, balance, etc. but that those instruments more than make up for it in the 'sound world' they bring to the table. Or perhaps exceed what the other set of instruments allow one to bring to the music. Do people here generally agree with that? I don't feel I am saying it well, but the point is can one really 'get' more out the music one way or another? But then music is always a question of balance in this regard (and sacrifice).

After all, I suspect that if you gather a group that performs on period instruments and a group that does not, they will both be able to point to reasons why they chose those instruments (and that sound) and both may feel 'their way' is to be preferred. This ignores the question of period performance, which I put to the side for the moment. Both can rationalize their choices and point to various aspects that support their position. I suspect that emotional issues play a bigger part in this dicussion than we have thus far acknowledged. It may just 'feel righter' to that group.  I know from other discussions that some sounds that irritate me blossom for others. Admittedly - it is a physical and emotional reaction, but we tend to associate it with our emotional response.

And do we listen for the same things I wonder? I guess not, but it rarely occurs to me to think much about this.

[mc ukrneal]

Of course, excellent playing is very important.  However, I think it matters greatly what instruments are used.  For example, I want nothing to do with baroque music on modern string instruments (sounds awful to me).

But let me ask then - is this because you start with a premise for how the music should sound or because that is the way you think the music should sound? Or do you just like one sound over another? And this question is not specifically for you - it is for all of us. For myself, I would tell you that I don't have a preconception for how the music should sound (and here I mixing in questions of balance, volume, etc, which are all related). But as I think about it, I think there are certain areas where perhaps I do (and not for all pieces or comosers - ah how fickle we humans can be sometimes), which makes me think that we all have such biases or preconceptions. And who is to say we aren't all of us right? Anyway, an interesting question. Perhaps I am too philosophical tonight!

[Bulldog]

But let me ask then - is this because you start with a premise for how the music should sound or because that is the way you think the music should sound? Or do you just like one sound over another? And this question is not specifically for you - it is for all of us. For myself, I would tell you that I don't have a preconception for how the music should sound (and here I mixing in questions of balance, volume, etc, which are all related). But as I think about it, I think there are certain areas where perhaps I do (and not for all pieces or comosers - ah how fickle we humans can be sometimes), which makes me think that we all have such biases or preconceptions. And who is to say we aren't all of us right? Anyway, an interesting question. Perhaps I am too philosophical tonight!

No preconceptions on my part.  When I got back into classical music in my 30's, I was listening to baroque music on modern instruments.  My enjoyment level was decent, nothing more.  Then I tried out the same type of music on period instruments.  For me, the difference was huge.  So, no preconceptions, just a large upward jump in illumination of the music.

[Superhorn]

    Well, the Herreweghe Bruckner 4th did sound a little different from orchestras such as the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics, the Staatskapelle Dresden and Chicago etc, in that the strings used less vibrato and sounded somewhat thinner than what we're accustomed to, which I wasn't thrilled with, but the brass didn't really sound different. at all.
    But is this exactly what Bruckner's music sounded like in the late 19th century ? I don't know.  One thing is certain ; I'm not going to throw away my Bruckner symphony recordings with Wand,Karajan, Skrowaczewski, Chailly, Tennstedt,  Tintner, Eschenbach, Muti etc away for Herreweghe or any other conductor who purports to give us "authentic" Bruckner. 
    The Herreweghe was interesting to hear, but  I'll stick with the great and established Bruckner conductors.  The later you start trying to apply HIP performance practice and instruments to, the less difference there is between  modern  performances. 
    HIP is a lot like a religion .   It has its true believers,  the fanatics who claim to have a monopoly on the truth ,  such as Norrignton, Herreweghe,Gardiner,  etc,  as well as the  atheist scoffers who contemptuously dismiss the whole movement,such as Perlman and Zukerman, Maazel and the late Klaus Tennstedt,   and the agnostics , who include me. 

[DavidW]

the fanatics who claim to have a monopoly on the truth  ... and the agnostics , who include me.

This is absurd, you are the fanatic.  Your own perception of yourself is highly distorted.  You take a narrow pov and don't waiver, and anything that contradicts your assertions you ignore.  You have a religion built around modern instrument performances.  The rest of us only reply because we pity you.  We are trying to save you from your deluded brainwashing.  We want you to see the world of musical performance in color instead of black and white.  You are missing so much, you don't even know.  If only you were open minded and willing to consider perspectives other than your own.

[Opus106]

If only I had the issue of BBC Music magazine to quote Gardiner, Suzuki and Koopman who, talking about their Bach Cantata recordings, were quite open about on what basis they chose their instrumentation, voicing and tuning. I remember that they not only accepted their short-comings but more importantly weren't dogmatic about their choices. Of course, them not being Norrington performing Mahler, I assume this argument will fall on deaf ears.

There is nothing wrong with finding fault -- when it is valid -- with one person's recording, but generalising that to represent the entirety of period performance is not justified.

[Que]

HIP is a lot like a religion.

No, I don't think so. HIP is a theoretical, musicological concept on the authenticity of a musical performance, in which scientific means are used to investigate and develop the ways to approximate the original musical context as close as possible. Of course one can reject the value of such a concept or the deny the presumption that such a thing it at all possible, but it is more than just ideology.

I think the controversy lies in the fact that in assuming there are ways to improve upon the authenticity of a musical performance, the inevitable conclusion is that there are also less authentic performances... Of course I could add that a less authentic performance is not necessarily of less musical/ artistic value (which I mean BTW), but I guess this is a bitter pill to swallow for some.

Q

[Superhorn]

   I'm a fanatic about the issue of period vs modern instruments ? How can you say this?  I'm not fanatic in the least bit.
      As I've said  previously, I have enjoyed a fair number of period instrument recordings and live performances very much.
    I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to
  sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP. 
   I call them as I hear them .   Just because I've heard the Beethoven symphony recordings of Norrignton and Gardiner etc is no reason to dismiss 
  the  Beethoven recordings  of  the same by  such giants as Furtwangler,Klemperer,  Karajan, Jochum,  Solti,  Bernstein,  Walter,
  and others.   But if the emperor has no clothes . . . . .
      It  was certainly an interesting idea in theory to hear what the music of Bach,Handel,  Haydn,Mozart and Beethoven etc MIGHT have sounded in the past,  but this does not in any way invalidate performances on modern instruments, "inauthentic" as they are.
    And remember - when you hear a studio recording of a Beethoven symphony by Gardiner or Norrington etc, you are hearing an IDEALIZED  recreation of the music.  These performances may actually be totally INAUTHENTIC, because they are no doubt much better played than the performances Beethoven experienced in his lifetime,with his diminished hearing.
     From all reports, the earliest Beethoven symphony performances in Vienna were pretty awful.  The musicians had woefully inadequate rehearsal time, and the music was  not only extremely strange and baffling to them, but extremely difficult to play.  Probably as difficult for them as the orchestral works of Elliott Carter a re for orchestras today.  But  when an orchestra today plays a work by Carter,  it gets much more rehearsal time than the orchestras of Beethoven's day got. 
    If we could go back in a time machine and hear the first performances of these symphonies, they would sound distressingly ragged and out of tune to us.   Today, youth orchestras play them much better !
   

[Leon]

   I'm a fanatic about the issue of period vs modern instruments ? How can you say this?  I'm not fanatic in the least bit.
      As I've said  previously, I have enjoyed a fair number of period instrument recordings and live performances very much.
    I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to
  sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP. 
   I call them as I hear them .   Just because I've heard the Beethoven symphony recordings of Norrignton and Gardiner etc is no reason to dismiss 
  the  Beethoven recordings  of  the same by  such giants as Furtwangler,Klemperer,  Karajan, Jochum,  Solti,  Bernstein,  Walter,
  and others.   But if the emperor has no clothes . . . . .
      It  was certainly an interesting idea in theory to hear what the music of Bach,Handel,  Haydn,Mozart and Beethoven etc MIGHT have sounded in the past,  but this does not in any way invalidate performances on modern instruments, "inauthentic" as they are.
    And remember - when you hear a studio recording of a Beethoven symphony by Gardiner or Norrington etc, you are hearing an IDEALIZED  recreation of the music.  These performances may actually be totally INAUTHENTIC, because they are no doubt much better played than the performances Beethoven experienced in his lifetime,with his diminished hearing.
     From all reports, the earliest Beethoven symphony performances in Vienna were pretty awful.  The musicians had woefully inadequate rehearsal time, and the music was  not only extremely strange and baffling to them, but extremely difficult to play.  Probably as difficult for them as the orchestral works of Elliott Carter a re for orchestras today.  But  when an orchestra today plays a work by Carter,  it gets much more rehearsal time than the orchestras of Beethoven's day got. 
    If we could go back in a time machine and hear the first performances of these symphonies, they would sound distressingly ragged and out of tune to us.   Today, youth orchestras play them much better !
   

I have to say that I am baffled by this post.  I seriously doubt what HIP performers are after is to recreate the "authenticity" of  Beethoven's earliest performances including ragged playing due to insufficient rehearsal time.  Also, I am not aware of many, if any, proponents of HIP/PI think that using their approach is "THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past" and  "sneer" at other interpretations.  If this is an accurate portrayal of the majority of HIP/PI practitioners, then I join you in criticizing them.

But, what you describe has not been my experience.  First, on  this forum the attitudes you describe are not evident, nor would I assume evident except among a small number of cranks.

What you seem to be doing is getting yourself all worked up fighting with strawmen.

[Gurn Blanston]

What you seem to be doing is getting yourself all worked up fighting with strawmen.

By all appearances, they are beating the crap out of him, too...



----------------
Now playing:
Van Swieten Trio - Hob 15_18 Trio in A for Keyboard & Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[Bulldog]

   I'm a fanatic about the issue of period vs modern instruments ? How can you say this?  I'm not fanatic in the least bit.
      As I've said  previously, I have enjoyed a fair number of period instrument recordings and live performances very much.
    I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to
  sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP. 
   I call them as I hear them .       

As do I and every member of the board.

[Opus106]

I just reject the notion that period instruments are THE ONLY VALID way to perform the music of the past  and refuse to sneer at any performance merely because it isn't  HIP. But  I  also refuse to praise any performance, live or recorded ,merely because it IS HIP.

As do Gardiner, Harnoncourt,  Herreweghe, Bruggen, Koopman et. al. who have performed and still perform Romantic, Classical (and sometimes even Baroque) repertoire with modern orchestras.

And remember - when you hear a studio recording of a Beethoven symphony by Gardiner or Norrington etc, you are hearing an IDEALIZED  recreation of the music.

That's what is usually meant when one says "trying to recreate the composer's intentions". The composer obviously didn't want  a bad performance, did he?

These performances may actually be totally INAUTHENTIC, because they are no doubt much better played than the performances Beethoven experienced in his lifetime,with his diminished hearing.
     From all reports, the earliest Beethoven symphony performances in Vienna were pretty awful.  The musicians had woefully inadequate rehearsal time, and the music was  not only extremely strange and baffling to them, but extremely difficult to play.     

Just FYI: a recreation has been attempted even of that! Check out the documentary "Eroica".

But to repeat what Leon said, it's not right to think that HIPsters want to recreate events surrounding the performance to the tiniest detail rather than the music in its intended form. (And not everyone is saying to play otherwise is wrong.)

[DavidRoss]

Well, I'm far from an expert on any of this.  And I'm naïve enough to believe that if a composer wrote a flute solo against a theme in the strings, he meant it to be heard rather than drowned out by a sting section four times larger than he imagined.  And whether he intended it or not, I still like hearing it.  Thus I value "transparency" regardless of relative HIPness or PIssiness of instrumentation and interpretive stance and I favor contemporary conductors who likewise value it.

[Chaszz]

I have just read the last page or two here and not the preceding 21, but many seem to be discussing the sound. My objection to some HIP performances is not the sound or instruments per se, but the very fast tempi. I think especially Bach is not well served by allegros that rush past like jet planes, where the triplets or ornaments are swallowed up in the jet streams so they cannot really be heard and the notes cannot be distinguished, but blur one into another. Two allegros that in my mind are often ill-served in this respect are the first movement of the E Major Violin Concerto and the Cum Sancto Spiritu of the B Minor Mass. Some of the commentaries on tempi I have read on the web by HIP musicologists agree there is no consistent evidence that historically tempi were this fast. Though speeding things up is in general agreement with the trend toward more transparency and lightness as against the ponderousness of the Romantic-influenced Baroque interpretations of the mid-20th century, I think in the case of very fast tempi the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater. I do not think Bach would have preferred his triplets or sixteenths to blur into one another in the ear.