The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Marc]

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.

Or having babychild Jesus rapidly rocked to sickness in his manger during the Weihnachtsoratorium-aria "Schlafe, mein Liebster, genieße der Ruh'" ....

[DavidW]

That was a clever way for the interviewer to insert his own opinion in the piece and not even provide that of Pinnock.  Shameful.

[Cato]

It is impossible to prove what I sense about this topic, but I suspect that our deceased composers - especially those from the 18th-century - would all welcome the modern symphony orchestra playing their works.

However, depending on their era, they might also be appalled by the tuning used to play their works.

[DavidW]

I have a feeling that they would enjoy a larger sound... but not if it is at expense of hearing certain instruments (that would be drowned out) especially if they slaved over those passages.

[Lethevich]

After the novelty wears off, they would possibly wish to revise or re-write the music to better suit such an extended ensemble, however...

[DavidW]

Considering how much some of these composers wrote... I don't think it's feasible.  And the idea would be bizarre to them because we're talking about the time where novelty wins.  You must constantly have a new piece of music to perform.  People didn't want to keep hearing the same old stuff.

[Opus106]

Considering how much some of these composers wrote... I don't think it's feasible.  And the idea would be bizarre to them because we're talking about the time where novelty wins.  You must constantly have a new piece of music to perform.  People didn't want to keep hearing the same old stuff.

True to some extent, but Bach, for example, did (supposedly) rewrite some of his violin concerti for harpsichord solo so as to please his employers; and he did re-use material between sacred and secular works, so it's not entirely out of the question.

[Gurn Blanston]

There is no debate. The debate was 25-30 years ago. What there is now is a fait accompli which people can either take or leave. I haven't a care in the world about it.   0:)

[DavidRoss]

There is no debate. The debate was 25-30 years ago. What there is now is a fait accompli which people can either take or leave. I haven't a care in the world about it.   0:)

Aye.

And, happily, the HIPsters influence has been pervasive enough that today I suspect there are few performers untouched by it, and all for the better.

[DavidW]

True to some extent, but Bach, for example, did (supposedly) rewrite some of his violin concerti for harpsichord solo so as to please his employers; and he did re-use material between sacred and secular works, so it's not entirely out of the question.

That's true, some of the works they might rewrite.  I wouldn't see Bach rewriting his cantatas, but I could see him rewriting his passions or his concertos.

[Opus106]

Virgil Fox has been dead for over thirty years. So when he says "current", it's not 2011 -- not even 1990 for that matter!

[DavidW]

Virgil Fox lol!  What tripe from a hack.  And your quote was taken out of context Toucan... he was railing against traditional performers like E. Power Biggs, not the HIP movement!

As for the Kirkpatrick quote, he was a champion of the HIP movement.  He was warning against misusing the guiding principles.  Context is everything!

Do you have anything else Toucan?  If not, James is missing you in the Stockhausen thread.

[Marc]

Virgil Fox did a nice job in creating enthusiasm for Bach and other classical organ music with f.i. his concerts for children.
However, the story goes that, when in Europe, he could not produce any decent sound from whatever historic organ there.

But of course this could be blamed to the instruments.

Personally, I rate Edward Power Biggs much higher.

Oh, btw: HIP isn't a movement of pedants. Just saying.
Pedants can be found anywhere.

[DavidRoss]

Hitlerites and Leninists may want to stiffle debate, but opinion cannot be stiffled; Ralph Kirkpatrick:

Virgil Fox:

Don't strike a match or those strawmen will go up like...strawmen!

As for

surely you don't suggest that anyone should take French intellectualizing seriously? Especially not in the context of promoting magazine sales?!

[Bulldog]

Intelligent people will always take Boulez and Christie seriously, as they are serious professionals and intelligent men as well as good musicians.
In fact, what is not taken seriously are people who come to internet forums only to denigrate talented people: that is why the books and magazines in which the words of Christie and Boulez are recorded get more attention than said internet forums. Much more.

With all your pontificating, you still haven't reported your personal reaction to period instrument performances.  Also, you happen to be one of the members most frequently engaged in denigration. 

[DavidRoss]

Intelligent people will always take Boulez and Christie seriously, as they are serious professionals and intelligent men as well as good musicians.
In fact, what is not taken seriously are people who come to internet forums only to denigrate talented people: that is why the books and magazines in which the words of Christie and Boulez are recorded get more attention than said internet forums. Much more.

Taking Boulez (a Frenchman) and Christie (an American) seriously as great musicians is not at all the same as taking the intellectual posturing of French journals seriously. And if you think to wound my fragile ego by suggesting that I'm not intelligent, then I must ask whether you really intended to reveal so much about yourself?

[Gurn Blanston]

Intelligent people will always take Boulez and Christie seriously, as they are serious professionals and intelligent men as well as good musicians.

I know that you can't be saying that serious, intelligent people are never prejudiced or wrong in their assumptions. Even you would not be so bold. So what are you saying then? That is a long reach just to make David look bad.   

[Bulldog]

Well, in your rush to personal attack you have failed to respond to the critique I have made of the period Instrument performances.

Give me a break.  You never did critique period instrument performances, just the dogma coming from a small minority.

As for me, I have no reason to defend period instrument performances.  With little exception, I love them and feel secure about it.  There are plenty of folks who don't care for them much, and that's fine with me.  There's room for a wide range of personal preferences.

Fortunately, regardless of your views, HIP is now an established part of the classical music landscape and will likely remain that way.  So you might as well accept this fact.  Perhaps it's time for you to dump on Shostakovich again, a composer who has been performed by hundreds of highly respected conductors and musicians.  And we all know how highly you think of "serious professionals".  You're such a joke!  Go home and come back after an injection of common sense.

[Bulldog]

Obviously there would be no point in prescribing any dose of class to this moron: his affliction is incurable and it is indeed telling that upholders of mediocrity - be it Shostakovich, period instruments, or Naxos - are congenitally incapable of defending their point of view without systematic abuse.

Right, I forgot that you also dumped on Naxos.  Let's face it - you're a dumper who is desperate to denigrate well-respected musical sources to call attention to yourself.  That's too bad; although you do seem to possess a decent knowledge of music, you piss it all away with your low self-esteem and tendency to criticize the same traits that you regularly display on this board.

[Bulldog]

The debate over period instrument performance has centered around two contentions:
1/ that in the absence of recordings dating back to early modern centuries, we cannot have any clear sense of how the music of those days sounded to contemporaries;

Do you prefer baroque keyboard music played on the modern piano?  I'm trying to get an idea of whether you like the sound of period instruments.