The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Sammy]

But you feel differently about keyboard music don't you? You enjoy piano records of baroque harpsichord music.

Yes I do, although the harpsichord is my first choice. 

[bigshot]

But you feel differently about keyboard music don't you? You enjoy piano records of baroque harpsichord music.

I'm not entirely sure if that isn't the fault of the way harpsichords are recorded. I like them when they're in a group and the mike isn't right on top of them, but solo harpsichord always seems to be close miked so your ears get hit with percussive thumps and bumps. If I listen to Scott Ross's Scarlatti at half normal volume I can tolerate it. I should try re equalizing it and perhaps adding a little digital reverb. That's no substitute for good miking, but maybe at least I wouldn't flinch so much as I listen to it.

[bigshot]

We are in the era of literalism

Too bad for us.

[Florestan]

We are in the era of literalism liberalism

Too bad for us.

+1 

[jochanaan]

Period style performances are not about being faithful to the letter of the score.  Actually that is one of the problems with modern performances is that they don't embellish when it is expected of them.  Affectations that you enjoy vibrato, rubato are found in romantic style performances which largely died out decades ago.  We are in the era of literalism, where the score is seen as a sacred document.  Perhaps that is okay when playing 20th and 21st century music, but it can be bland when it comes to 19th century and older music.

An excellent point.  By all reports, musicians in the 18th and early 19th centuries (and probably from antiquity till then) treated the score much as a jazz musician does, as a springboard for their own creative playing.  Musicians like Beethoven and Verdi had to insist that singers and players do things exactly as written and no more.  (I once heard a recording of one of the Brandenburgs done by, I think, Randy Newman and friends; modern instruments, and probably the only recording I've heard where the performers added graces and improvisations in good Baroque style.  It was beautiful!  There's more than one way a performance needs to be Historically Informed. )

[Lilas Pastia]

The concept of HIP Mozart (or Beethoven, or Haydn) is a figment of the mind if you ask me (but I know nobody asked me  ). One of the characteristics of the HIP crowd is that they're content to dabble and dawdle in their preconceived perceptions of music - meaning: how it should be played, conceived and interpreted (in that order).

In a real musical interpretational pursuit these actions are of the utmost importance, but in reverse: in any artistic action, a funnel that leads from the general to the particular should be followed. With HIP Believers it comes in reverse : playing comes first, then conception and we'll see about interpretation later, if we have time. That's the point I keep reproaching to classical (not early music) practitioners: by the time music came to be expected to carry feelings, priorities had changed, and changed big time!

In any timeline graph, you expect events to move sideways, horizontally. Every once in a while (and IMO more often than is generally thought), a change in artistic perception occurs very fast and things move vertically. Tectonic plates generally move horizontally. When they do vertically, a much bigger shift of forces is experienced (a vertical shift of tectonic plates creates a tsunami of devastating force. An horizontal shift of the same magnitude merely causes an earth tremor).  It is my firm belief that artists such as CPE Bach, Mozart and Haydn had the 'antennae' that enabled them to jump above the technichal capacities (and understanding) of their times. Had it not been the case, their music would not have survived the next generation of composers. Therefore, putting technical matters (instrument building advancement as of a given date or epoch) above conceptual and interpretational ones blocks the music's forward motion.

Another indication of that hindrance can be found simply and intuitively: take any long time interpreter of Mozart (or Brahms, or even Stravinsky) music, and compare their recordings over, say, 30 years. A case in point may be found in the subject at hand: Mozart's music. Listen to Karl Böhm's interpretation with 3 different orchestras hailing from different traditions, of Mozart's last 3 symphonies: Concertgebouw 1956, Berlin 1965 and Vienna 1978. I defy any one not to come across surprised by the difference of conception and even greater différence of interpretation to be found here. If it all had been laid at the door of HIP, instrumentalists, conductors and other intepreters could quit playing Mozart's music as soon as they thing they have 'got it'.

Fortunately it is not so and musicians evolve with time. Putting music - any music - in a time capsule is an insult to the genius of a composer.

[Que]

Well, I guess we're back to square one on the HIP-debate!  There goes the "clean slate" Gurn wished for...

André, I don't agree with the picture you paint of proponents of historically informed performances. In a rather ungraceful post, I have to add.

Q

[Elgarian]

The concept of HIP Mozart (or Beethoven, or Haydn) is a figment of the mind

So, of course, is the concept of music of any kind ....

One of the characteristics of the HIP crowd is that they're content to dabble and dawdle in their preconceived perceptions of music - meaning: how it should be played, conceived and interpreted (in that order). .... With HIP Believers it comes in reverse  ...

I suspect I'm not alone in my reluctance to accept these (quite unpleasantly-toned) categorisations of 'the HIP crowd' and 'HIP believers'. There are those among us, you know, who are in love with many period performances not because of some theoretical argument, but because we find they bring the music so vividly to life in a particularly rewarding way. It's depressing to see such activity described, de haut en bas, as dabbling and dawdling. And on a purely practical level, if I wanted to persuade a sceptical audience to listen to my point of view, I doubt it would help my cause if I began by dismissing them as dabblers and dawdlers.

[bigshot]

in any artistic action, a funnel that leads from the general to the particular should be followed.

That is absolutely true, and it isn't just true of music, it's all creative pursuits. Painters compose their canvases considering the large forms first and the details last. The same is true of architects, dancers, graphic designers and sculptors.

[Gurn Blanston]

That is absolutely true, and it isn't just true of music, it's all creative pursuits. Painters compose their canvases considering the large forms first and the details last. The same is true of architects, dancers, graphic designers and sculptors.

And the point of that is... what?  I'm totally not sure that I have the least idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis music performance.

"The sky is blue. It should always be blue at the start, but it can later be made other colors as needed." 

That is an artistic truism, just like what you stated. It has no meaning in and of itself. 

[Scarpia]

Once again the argument is stated: If only Haydn had known of our modern instruments he would have preferred to hear his music played on them, not those of his time.

This is a purely hypothetical statement and does not add much to the discussion other than this person's personal thoughts.  What we do know is that Haydn knew nothing of the modern concert grand or the modern orchestra.  It would seem obvious that he was expecting his music to be played on those instruments from his time - which is what the PI movement is all about.  Seems simple to me.

And to go one step further, even if we assume that Haydn would have preferred the sound of modern instruments, he presumably would have written different music to take advantage of the greater capabilities of those instruments.   What we have when we play Haydn on a modern orchestra is music that does not remotely exploit the capabilities of the ensemble, which makes it sound weak or tame compared to the music written by later composers who did take advantage.  For instance, when Haydn wrote for horn or trumpet, he was aware of when he was exploiting a remote overtone, or taxing the player so that a brilliant effect would be achieved.  When that same part is played on a modern valved instrument on which the passage is routine the original effect can be lost. 

I recall reading a commentary (I think by Harnoncourt) to the effect that modern brass play too loud, and when played to maintain balance in a classical orchestra produce a rounded tone.  The old valve-less wind instruments were weaker and would produce a brilliant timbre when played loud enough to make themselves heard. 

[Scarpia]

I suspect I'm not alone in my reluctance to accept these (quite unpleasantly-toned) categorisations of 'the HIP crowd' and 'HIP believers'. There are those among us, you know, who are in love with many period performances not because of some theoretical argument, but because we find they bring the music so vividly to life in a particularly rewarding way. It's depressing to see such activity described, de haut en bas, as dabbling and dawdling. And on a purely practical level, if I wanted to persuade a sceptical audience to listen to my point of view, I doubt it would help my cause if I began by dismissing them as dabblers and dawdlers.

I can't imagine it said better.

[DavidW]

I can't really agree with Andre's post.  I don't see Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven as Gods not meant for their time.  That is insulting to both them and their contemporaries.  They are as much of their time as their friends.  I don't see musicians as translating emotions into sound.  I see musicians as performing artists.  We can be moved by a performance whether it be period style or modern style.  There is no one group of performers that have a monopoly on my heart.

[Lilas Pastia]

Sensibilities run high! Guys, just go back to the title of the thread: Historically informed performances. What is the meaning behind the words? Answer: that there are two kinds of performances: historically informed and historically uninformed. It doesn't take an Einstein brain to figure that either one is a figment of the mind. There is no such thing as a right or wrong kind of performance. They can be characterized (and I have done so), but is that a judgment on their artistic merit? Come on, you react like I had insulted your mothers and sisters 

DavidW put it very well. He disagrees with a statement I never made (it's internet after all) but goes on to say that there is no monopoly on (musical) virtue. I strongly agree with that. Which is why I question (NOT condemn) the mere term and concept of a Historically Informed Performance. To adhere strictly to the notion of HIP is to disavow and renege any evolution of performance practice since a work's conception. HIP is certainly useful, but IMO it's merely a tool, not an artistic statement.

Many of my favourite performances of the 1750-1850 era are from Period Performance practitioners. Berlioz' memoirs and Mozart's letters (he was quite prolific) are a good read for any one who thinks that their era's performance practice is Paradise lost.

Once again I note how people tend to distort one's thoughts (sorry, San Antonio, but shame on you) to advance one's own theories  . If that helps you be stronger in your convictions, I really pity you.

Too bad something as beautiful as music can make people react so negatively. So long guys, it was nice while it lasted.

[DavidW]

If you are still reading I think that period style performance practice is very much an artistic statement.  And a bold one too.  Choosing it to play the music of the baroque and classical era in a way that few do is to approach the music with a very different aesthetic. 

I think that period performance is a part of the evolution of performance practice, it's not separate.  I see an evolution and a lineage dating back to Karl Richter and earlier.  There was a fork in the road, that is how I would put it.  To move down one road might be seen as a disavowal of the other path, but for PIons to disavow the modern style is just as valid as MIsters to disavow period style.  They made their choice, but sometimes they meet in a clearing between the roads and have an exchange of ideas.  There is room to appreciate more than one approach to music making.

We need to move beyond superficial ideas that period performance practice is not art.  It is.

[DavidRoss]

The concept of HIP Mozart (or Beethoven, or Haydn) is a figment of the mind....

So, of course, is the concept of music of any kind ....

Darned philosophers!

That is absolutely true, and it isn't just true of music, it's all creative pursuits. Painters compose their canvases considering the large forms first and the details last. The same is true of architects, dancers, graphic designers and sculptors.

Huh? That's about as dogmatic as it's possible to be ... and every bit as wrong. No doubt it's true of some painters (and other artists) some of the time, however.

[mc ukrneal]

Can I ask a stupid question?

Can't one get to the spirit of the music regardless of the instruments and approach used?

Here's another way of looking at it: Two groups perform a piece of music: one PI and one MI. Let's assume they both play it well and bring something to listener (and let's also assume they are both playing it in good faith for the listener). Would you agree that both are valid (though preferences may differ, just like any comparison)?

[Karl Henning]

The larger question is . . . just where is the music?

[Gurn Blanston]

Can I ask a stupid question?

Can't one get to the spirit of the music regardless of the instruments and approach used?

Here's another way of looking at it: Two groups perform a piece of music: one PI and one MI. Let's assume they both play it well and bring something to listener (and let's also assume they are both playing it in good faith for the listener). Would you agree that both are valid (though preferences may differ, just like any comparison)?

Certainly they are. And since there isn't a bigger fan of PI on this forum, I have the right to say that the majority of people here would feel the same. As I have occasionally mentioned as a point of wonderment for me; I see 10X more hostility towards HIP from MI fans than I see from PIons towards MI. That's day in day out.

[Karl Henning]

Of course, that average may be skewed by the occasional hothead who inexplicably feels that PI practitioners are the Great Musical Satan . . . .