The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[DavidW]

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;

This argument is well known to be invalid.  We do have a clear sense of how the music sounded back then, it's simply not known with absolute certainty.  There is a huge gap between "absolute certainty" and "complete lack of knowledge" pretending that gap is small doesn't actually shrink it.

2/ that even if these recordings existed, ignoring, quelling, pre-empting the natural evolution of musical performance & instrument-making is not the wisest path for musicians to borrow

Why is that folly?  What makes perfect sense to you, doesn't for me.  FYI there is nothing "natural" about the transformation of musical instruments because they were built by man and then built differently by other men to play different music.  It's not as if instruments got out into the wild and natural selection occurred!

[Gurn Blanston]

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;

Why rely on something as subjective as recordings (listen to some from the early 20th century and you will know what I mean. Modern experts can't even agree on what they were playing)  when we actually have the instruments that were used back then, and reams of instructional books written by people that knew what they were talking about, since in the main, they actually wrote the music. as a point of debate and lynchpin of a movement, that verges on retarded.  And since you are one that requires minute spelling out of subtleties, I am not calling you retarded (unless that is your original argument).

2/ that even if these recordings existed, ignoring, quelling, pre-empting the natural evolution of musical performance & instrument-making is not the wisest path for musicians to borrow

And with the exception of some mouth-foaming disciples from 25-30 years ago, you would be hard pressed to turn up a credible representative of the early music movement who feels now that your so-called 'evolved' music can't possibly coexist with period performance. As I tried, in a friendly sort of way, to tell you earlier today, there is no debate really. Except on the part of Internet forumites with all their attendant adjectives.

[Bulldog]

I'm not toucan, but that is one of the reasons I don't particularly care HIP. Mainly, that plinking. I find that really irritating. I don't mind the orchestral works done in that manner though.

I appreciate your response.  Often, I find that people who don't care much for HIP dislike the sound of the instruments.  Unfortunately, toucan does not appear to want to address this crucial aspect of HIP performance.

[DavidRoss]

Is Newman back with a new user name and a new axe to grind?

[Gurn Blanston]

It is precisely this heavy resort to the textbooks of the past that most certainly condemns the HIP movement; it is indeed a movement of pedants, who try too closely to follow the textbooks of the past instead of performing with educated spontaneity

In this junction I might bring back an old truth, one that does not apply only to HIP. Though transmitting rules is the purpose of the schools, teachers who stick too narrowly to the rules and judge students in terms of their adherence to the rules instead of the talent with which they use - or break! - them - are generally considered bad teachers - just as students who can do no better than apply the rules without imagination are generally thought of as mediocre (relative to a Debussy, for example, who got scolded by his teachers, etc)

What textbooks have the great composers authored? An occasional one - Rameau, Schoenberg, Messiaen may have authored musicological treatise - but textbooks? So, when we consult textbooks, it is the opinions of dime-a-dozen music teachers we are getting and are they the best possible guide into the creations of genius? THe HIP movement is indeed an historical error, not only because they stick too narrowly to books, but also because the books they use were not written by the best musicians of former days.

OK, well, here is a very small list. There isn't a minor personage in the group (and that is not dependent on what a modern person may know about them):

Johann Joachim Quantz: Although Quantz wrote many pieces of music, mainly for the flute (including around 300 flute concertos), he is best known today as the author of Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen (1752) (titled On Playing the Flute in English), a treatise on flute playing. It is a valuable source of reference regarding performance practice and flute technique in the 18th century.

Carl Philip Emanuel Bach: His publication, An Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments was a definitive work on technique. It broke with rigid tradition in allowing, even encouraging the use of the thumbs, and became the standard on finger technique for keyboards. The essay basically lays out the fingering for each chord and some chord sequences. The techniques are largely followed to this day. The first part of the Essay has a chapter explaining the various embellishments in work of the period, e.g., trills, turns, mordents, etc. The second part presents Emanuel Bach's ideas on the art of figured bass and counterpoint, where he gives preference to the contrapuntal approach to harmonization over the newer ideas of Rameau's theory of harmony and root progressions. Emanuel Bach's work was influential on, among others, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.

Johann Joseph Fux:  (1660 – 13 February 1741) was an Austrian composer, music theorist and pedagogue of the late Baroque era. He is most famous as the author of Gradus ad Parnassum, a treatise on counterpoint, which has become the single most influential book on the Palestrina style of Renaissance polyphony. Almost all modern courses on Renaissance counterpoint, a mainstay of college music curricula, are indebted in some degree to this work by Fux. Beethoven studied Fux. Clementi wrote a major teaching work called Gradus ad parnassum based on Fux that was used right through the 19th century.

Leopold Mozart: Mozart is best known today as the father and teacher of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and for his violin textbook Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule.

Johann Albrechtsberger: Probably the most valuable service he rendered to music was in his theoretical works. In 1790 he published at Leipzig a treatise on composition, of which a third edition appeared in 1821. A collection of his writings on harmony, in three volumes, was published under the care of his pupil Ignaz von Seyfried (1776–1841) in 1826. An English version of this was published by Novello in 1855. His compositional style derives from Johann Joseph Fux's counterpoint, who was Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral 1713-1741, a position that Albrechtsberger would hold 52 years later.

Despite the obvious fact that I only listed the academic works of these men, they also produced among them a huge body of musical works. They were primarily working musicians who wrote books in order to teach others the importance of basic elements of style. The fact that you condemn teachers is sad, in my view. If people didn't teach and write about it, we would constantly be relearning the basics in each generation and never advance. You can't continue to build when you don't know what came before. In point of fact, I have found the most inflexible and unyielding people to be critics, not teachers.

So there's a start for you. Lots more where that came from, but it is Sunday evening and I just don't feel up to hunting it down tonight.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, before you give us more names of composers who have not been recognized as peers of Mozart and Haydn, how about doing your job as a mod and deal appropriately with immature and abusive posts of James and DavidRoss? It isn't just that that they make further conversation basically impossible; they deter most guests from participating in this site - thereby damaging the commercial purpose implied in the linking of it to Amazon.

I'm sure that once we set a tone of mature discussion then the others will be pleased to give us some space. They aren't mean, just reactionary.

However, that doesn't constitute an escape route. Nor does the fact that you apparently haven't got to the point of dealing with the simple fact that Mozart and Haydn, nor any other composer, is not sui generis, but is totally a product of their learning and relationships with each other. I can assure you without the slightest reservation that Haydn and Mozart (and all other composers) knew and respected these men not only as their peers, but in some cases as their superiors. Don't be fooled by 19th Century Romantic rhetoric, in the 18th century everyone knew who was who, and where credit was due for the state of music at the time. FYI, C.P.E. Bach was easily the peer of his father. And 10X more famous.

[Cato]

I once had a mini-debate with somebody who made the following analogy: listening to period instruments play a c. 250 year-old work in (what we believe to be) the style of the day is similar to seeing e.g. the Sistine Chapel right after it was painted by Michelangelo rather than the faded and cracked "version" we see today.

That sounds good at first, until one pursues the analogy to its logical conclusion: would not the musical equivalent be to hear the 250 year-old work played on instruments damaged and worn out by 250 years of use and with a score damaged by e.g. soot, water, and fire?

While there is a case to be made for hearing a work the way its composer would have heard it performed, I still think that Bach
and company would prefer to hear their works played on e.g. a modern Steinway rather than a clavichord. 

Yes, agreed, they would have composed differently, if they had known about the Steinway or a modern symphony orchestra.   

0:)  But they didn't! 

[Antoine Marchand]

All this debate recalls me a question formulated during a discussion on the Bach-cantatas site:

Are there even any convenient terms or acronyms for various forms of "non-HIP"? Historically Clueless Performance? Wild Guesswork Performance? Whatever Feels Right Performance? Whatever My Personal Hero Did Must Be Right Performance? Didn't Do My Homework So I'll Wing It Performance? Anything Goes Performance? History Is Irrelevant Performance? Whatever They Did On My Favorite Recording That's What I Must Imitate Performance? Just The Facts Ma'am Performance? What My Teacher's Teacher's Teacher's Teacher's Teacher Did Because He Was Beethoven Performance?) OK, I'm getting carried away here, but all those types of performance do exist, even if there aren't convenient labels for them. And there are many different flavors of Historically Informed Performance, also...

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Articulation.htm

[Gurn Blanston]

I once had a mini-debate with somebody who made the following analogy: listening to period instruments play a c. 250 year-old work in (what we believe to be) the style of the day is similar to seeing e.g. the Sistine Chapel right after it was painted by Michelangelo rather than the faded and cracked "version" we see today.

That sounds good at first, until one pursues the analogy to its logical conclusion: would not the musical equivalent be to hear the 250 year-old work played on instruments damaged and worn out by 250 years of use and with a score damaged by e.g. soot, water, and fire?

While there is a case to be made for hearing a work the way its composer would have heard it performed, I still think that Bach
and company would prefer to hear their works played on e.g. a modern Steinway rather than a clavichord. 

Yes, agreed, they would have composed differently, if they had known about the Steinway or a modern symphony orchestra.   

0:)  But they didn't!

I have never had an argument with you, and never want to have. However, I am unable to let this pass without pointing out that it is so logically absurd that it is undeserving of what I know to be a very fine mind. You state that as though it were a fact, when it is only your opinion that A> modern instruments sound 'better' (whatever that means) and B> Composers from a different time and with a different set of aesthetics would agree with you!  Please don't go down that road, you're better than that.

[Leon]

Talk about something we can not ever know: that composers from the 18th century would probably prefer to hear their works on modern instruments.   

That is not a question I care about.  For me it is simple, I like the way HIP/PI performances sound.  I also like modern instrument performances for some of this repertory.  There is no debate in my mind, it all comes down to what someone prefers to hear.

[Gurn Blanston]

And it's not a matter of either it being just one way or the other in a hardline fashion. There is a wide spectrum .. and there is mediation.

Thank you. Why does that seem so hard to grasp, I wonder.

[chasmaniac]

For me it is simple, I like the way HIP/PI performances sound.  I also like modern instrument performances for some of this repertory.  There is no debate in my mind, it all comes down to what someone prefers to hear.

+1

I'll try almost any approach. If I like what I hear, I'll listen again, perhaps again and again. If I don't like it, I shelve it or give it away. No theory required.

[DavidW]

Cato I don't like that analogy.  The painting is right there.  It might age, but it is still the same painting.  The original performances of great music in the past are heard once and then lost forever.  Performances today of those great works are more like painting what they think the Sistine Chapel would look like if only they could see it.  The modern instrument performances are more like choosing paint not available at the time.  You might think that the new colors like striking and vivid, but it's not the same thing anymore.

[DavidRoss]

Thank you. Why does that seem so hard to grasp, I wonder.

A small but significant portion of the population is trapped in "black & white thinking" and cannot make fine judgments or escape their own narrowly rigid patterns of thought to embrace new and more flexible conceptions--those with Asperger Syndrome or other autism spectrum disorders, for instance, or suffering borderline or narcissistic personality disorders.  Many others among us have similar tendencies toward dichotomous thinking but not to the extreme associated with such well known pathologies.

Once we recognize the difference between a camel and a horse, we stop expecting the former to win the Kentucky Derby.

[Cato]

I have never had an argument with you, and never want to have. However, I am unable to let this pass without pointing out that it is so logically absurd that it is undeserving of what I know to be a very fine mind. You state that as though it were a fact, when it is only your opinion that A> modern instruments sound 'better' (whatever that means) and B> Composers from a different time and with a different set of aesthetics would agree with you!

C> Please don't go down that road, you're better than that.

Yes, I have stated that this is indeed my opinion!  I have used "I think" and "I believe" here!   

A. I have heard works played on instruments from earlier centuries, and to me they sound rather rough, despite the best efforts of the musicians.  "Better" therefore are modern instruments, I believe. 

And obviously a Stradivarius stands in opposition to that idea!      (Obviously I am thinking of improvements in e.g. the brass.)

B. Again, I think e.g. Mozart, were we to abduct him in Bill and Ted's Excellent Telephone-Booth Time Machine, would love the modern symphony orchestra.  Certainly it is possible his reaction would be horror and would find the idea bloated and perverse!

C.  I am not going down any such road whatsoever!   

[Cato]

Cato I don't like that analogy.  The painting is right there.  It might age, but it is still the same painting.  The original performances of great music in the past are heard once and then lost forever.  Performances today of those great works are more like painting what they think the Sistine Chapel would look like if only they could see it.  The modern instrument performances are more like choosing paint not available at the time.  You might think that the new colors like striking and vivid, but it's not the same thing anymore.

Yes, I did not like it either!  The analogy breaks down.  That is the problem with restorations: how much will be left of the original in a restored painting?

There is an old problem from Logic 101: "This is my grandfather's ax.  I replaced the blade recently, and my father replaced the handle.  This is my grandfather's ax."

One could speculate that in 500 years, not one speck of Michelangelo's paint will be left on the Sistine Chapel ceiling: it will all be replaced with paint from restorations throughout the centuries.

Its Essence (the images of the painting) will still be visible, but the Substance will be gone. 

With music things are quite different: it will also not be "the same thing any more."  Which one do we want to choose?  Fortunately we have multiple choices.   0:) 

[Gurn Blanston]

A. I have heard works played on instruments from earlier centuries, and to me they sound rather rough, despite the best efforts of the musicians.  "Better" therefore are modern instruments, I believe. 

And obviously a Stradivarius stands in opposition to that idea!      (Obviously I am thinking of improvements in e.g. the brass.)

They don't sound better to me, and it can't be just me else there wouldn't be anyone to cater to my measly $1000/year. A Mozart piano sonata played on a modern Steinway makes me turn off the music player, it is the audible definition of aural bloat. Actually, most Strads conform to your idea of an instrument rather than mine, since the 19th century saw to their wholesale destruction pretty well.

B. Again, I think e.g. Mozart, were we to abduct him in Bill and Ted's Excellent Telephone-Booth Time Machine, would love the modern symphony orchestra.  Certainly it is possible his reaction would be horror and would find the idea bloated and perverse!

Since we are trading perceptions, I would certainly agree with your second possibility. Instruments that were designed to do justice to Wagner are monumental overkill when it comes to any Mozart and most Haydn. They weren't taking into account those potentialities of the orchestra; my own reaction is horror, with a strong dose of bloat and perversion to prop it up.

C.  I am not going down any such road whatsoever!   

OK, you fooled me there then. I use an internal metaphor of a road to stand for the pursuit of an idea. I have to say, you seemed to me to be at least on the entrance ramp....

[Cato]

They don't sound better to me, and it can't be just me else there wouldn't be anyone to cater to my measly $1000/year. A Mozart piano sonata played on a modern Steinway makes me turn off the music player, it is the audible definition of aural bloat. Actually, most Strads conform to your idea of an instrument rather than mine, since the 19th century saw to their wholesale destruction pretty well.

Since we are trading perceptions, I would certainly agree with your second possibility. Instruments that were designed to do justice to Wagner are monumental overkill when it comes to any Mozart and most Haydn. They weren't taking into account those potentialities of the orchestra; my own reaction is horror, with a strong dose of bloat and perversion to prop it up.


OK, you fooled me there then. I use an internal metaphor of a road to stand for the pursuit of an idea. I have to say, you seemed to me to be at least on the entrance ramp....

Wow!  No, that would not be my reaction at all, as you see.  I in general do not like the tinnier and tinier sounds of clavichords and harpsichords, with some exception.

Although I once composed a (comic) ballet called Ship of Fools which used among other things a battery of krummhorns and 9 harpsichords.      

[Brian]

David Hurwitz has taken a hatchet to yet another HIP CD, using adjectives like "dessicated," "asthmatic," and "anorexic" to describe the ensembles sound.

But the surprising part of the review is this:

"After reviewing the last installment in this evidently ongoing series, I received the following note from conductor Michael Willens: 'Since you are clearly completely unimpressed with what we do, it might make more sense for you to jerk off at home rather then [sic] in public. I am sure that the classical music community and CD buying public will be most thankful.'"

[Gurn Blanston]

Wow!  No, that would not be my reaction at all, as you see.  I in general do not like the tinnier and tinier sounds of clavichords and harpsichords, with some exception.

Which of course is the root of the dichotomy. I want you to be able to listen to what you prefer to hear, and I want to listen to what I like without having to defend it all the time. If I can just make a point to an ace grammarian, adjectives are the worst part of any conversation on this topic. Hard not to use them, but they are inflammatory enough to cause all this dissension.