The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[bigshot]

Before HIP, not many folks wanted to hear baroque music, and I can't blame them.

I don't think that's true at all. There just hadn't been the scholarship to uncover the performing scores. There was a group of Baroque pieces that were very popular, and people certainly would have welcomed more, but until people started getting into the archives and digging them out, no one knew that all of those works even existed.

[Sammy]

I don't think that's true at all. There just hadn't been the scholarship to uncover the performing scores. There was a group of Baroque pieces that were very popular, and people certainly would have welcomed more, but until people started getting into the archives and digging them out, no one knew that all of those works even existed.

How would you explain the large increase in recordings of baroque works that were already well known such as the Goldberg Variations?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Maybe something's been lost in translation but it's comments like this:

Not earth shattering, but indeed a difference: the monumental, pompous character is gone.

But then I always preferred performances that weren't like that anyway (so no Böhm/Gilels). Brahms wasn't like that, if anyone beliefs me...

...that lead me to the very thing I said here:

That's the flip side. I love HIP but I see MI dumping all the time on this board. It's not so overt which avoids wholesale toes from being stepped on but still it exists. The residual effect is to create an air of superiority, and since the whole thing is so subtle to call anyone out on it is to invite cries of pedantry.

Subtle or not it's still distasteful for me to read so I honestly have no sympathy for HIPsters who try to cry foul.

Q's comments suggest HIP is something like a key which will unlock the true Brahms. The Gilels/Jochum (not Böhm) recordings are broad, yes, but never pompous...nor are they anti-Brahms.

So, what gives?

[Que]

Q's comments suggest HIP is something like a key which will unlock the true Brahms.

You might read that suggestion into it, but that was not my intention. There are plenty of performances on modern(ised) instruments that show Brahms how I personally perceive him.

The Gilels/Jochum (not Böhm) recordings are broad, yes, but never pompous...nor are they anti-Brahms.

So, what gives?

Broad, Romantic, pompous....I guess the choice of words depends on your taste.  "Anti-Brahms" is also a choice of words, wordings I wouldn't make mine.

But it is not the performance that shows these pieces how I perceive them. What's new about that in picking favourite performances?

Q

[mc ukrneal]

How would you explain the large increase in recordings of baroque works that were already well known such as the Goldberg Variations?

I think we need to be careful how we interpret this. First, it's just one piece. Second, we don't know the world proportion of pianists to harpsichordists, information we need to help make sense of it. Third, those recordings you counted include many live performances that probably would not have been released in the past. Fourth, there is a corresponding increase in recordings with better recording/play back technologies (so there is a likely correlation there). Fifth, we would also need to see how many companies there are today versus back then (as each company will want to release a version on their label). Sixth, these days they often do more recordings around marketing events (like 300th anniversaries and such), which were not done to the same degree in the past. Seventh, I observed a huge increase in non-traditional performances (quartets, for example) of the pieces, probably the largest growth area on a percentage basis. I'm sure I can go on and on, but you get the idea. It's hard to figure out just which had the biggest influence. With the information we have, I think we can only speculate.

[Brian]

By the way, I decided to start this megathread from the beginning. I'm around page 18 or so, and wanted to say that it's been fascinating reading from the start, even the flame-war between M forever and HIP-haters, because it contains some of M's finest (that is, both most caustic and most insightful) work. Also some terrific CD recommendations.

[Scarpia]

Q's comments suggest HIP is something like a key which will unlock the true Brahms. The Gilels/Jochum (not Böhm) recordings are broad, yes, but never pompous...nor are they anti-Brahms.

So, what gives?

Actually, I suspect he is thinking of Backhaus/Bohm.  Backhaus met Brahms, and his playing was admired by the composer, and I don't see how you can beat those HIP bona fides.    For what it's worth, I also thought of this thread when I saw this post elsewhere, and it struck me as revealing a condescension towards those who don't prefer HIP performances.

[Que]

By the way, I decided to start this megathread from the beginning. I'm around page 18 or so, and wanted to say that it's been fascinating reading from the start, [...]

I wouldn't have expected otherwise! 

even the flame-war between M forever and HIP-haters, because it contains some of M's finest (that is, both most caustic and most insightful) work. Also some terrific CD recommendations.

In a way, M was (is) a HIP-hater himself...or rather, he was in a love/hate relationship with HIP. I feel he was kind of split on the issue: as a musician he had a huge respect for the historical and technical research that has been done by the HIP crowd and the intellectual effort that went into it, on the other hand he was a late-Romantic at heart and didn't always like the results...

Q

[Gurn Blanston]

Which all gets back to what I have supported for many years; that people make an effort to attempt to explain what they like and dislike about a recording without being comparative. This goes to whatever your stance on whatever subject. It is not being unnecessarily PC (politically correct) to say 'I like this because...". It can be construed as aggressive rudeness (even by the not overly sensitive) when one says "this approach that I prefer is way better than So-and-So's. He misses the mark altogether...".  It isn't hard to avoid saying things like that, but I read statements like that here every day. No wonder that people get pissy about it. I know I do.

[Que]

Actually, I suspect he is thinking of Backhaus/Bohm.  Backhaus met Brahms, and his playing was admired by the composer, and I don't see how you can beat those HIP bona fides.    For what it's worth, I also thought of this thread when I saw this post elsewhere, and it struck me as revealing a condescension towards those who don't prefer HIP performances.

Nothing of the sort, and that kind of response is rather revealing in itself... I happen to agree that Backhaus' Brahms is thoroughly authentic, like Weingartner's recording of the symphonies.

But I wasn't commenting on Backhaus but on the recording with Gilels, and I've been burnt at the stakes for not appreciating that performance before - so please be my guest.

Q

[Scarpia]

But I wasn't commenting on Backhaus but on the recording with Gilels, and I've been burnt at the stakes for not appreciating that performance before - so please be my guest.

Couldn't say, never hear the Gilels recording.

[Superhorn]

   Thpse who say we can't assume that composers such as Haydn,Mozart,and Bach etc  would have preferred  the modern instruments we use today if they could have heard them are right .
  But we also can't assume that these ocmposers would have DISLIKED our modern instruments  either if they could be miraculously revived and  experience them . Or that they would ocndemn musicians of the present day for using modern instruments .
If I had four wheels I'd be a Cadillac !

[Gurn Blanston]

   Thpse who say we can't assume that composers such as Haydn,Mozart,and Bach etc  would have preferred  the modern instruments we use today if they could have heard them are right .
  But we also can't assume that these ocmposers would have DISLIKED our modern instruments  either if they could be miraculously revived and  experience them . Or that they would ocndemn musicians of the present day for using modern instruments .
If I had four wheels I'd be a Cadillac !

And if pigs had wings, we would all be wearing these big hats...

It is OK to suppose anything you want to suppose.  Where that turns into brain mush is when people extrapolate (as they usually do) their own fantasy and try to make it the reality. I can't tell you how many times I've read in the last 15 years that if Beethoven had heard a Steinway he would have never played one of them crappy pianofortes again. Or better yet "Beethoven was looking into the future and writing for the instruments that he knew would one day come into being". Yes, I have actually read that, and more than once. 

Do I think that Beethoven would have liked a modern piano if he time-traveled and had a chance to play one?  Sure, what's not to like? But it is important to separate that from the reality; he didn't have the electron tube that would have enabled time travel, and so he was stuck in early 19th century Vienna with his tinkly old pianoforte...    

[Brian]

Which all gets back to what I have supported for many years; that people make an effort to attempt to explain what they like and dislike about a recording without being comparative. This goes to whatever your stance on whatever subject. It is not being unnecessarily PC (politically correct) to say 'I like this because...". It can be construed as aggressive rudeness (even by the not overly sensitive) when one says "this approach that I prefer is way better than So-and-So's. He misses the mark altogether...".  It isn't hard to avoid saying things like that, but I read statements like that here every day. No wonder that people get pissy about it. I know I do.

An example of the very finest kind of CD recommendation can, of course, be found in this thread.

[Gurn Blanston]

An example of the very finest kind of CD recommendation can, of course, be found in this thread.

Yes, that is a very convincing exposition. Of course, I already love the disk so I was easy to convince....

[Que]

Investigating the historical context of historical music is not a guarantee for "correct" or even "good" performances at all, but it can be a basis for stylisitically very complex and interesting, and with that attitude, essentially modern performances. Because that kind of attitude towards our cultural history is a very modern attitude.

I especially liked this pearl of wisdom. HIP is a quintessentially (post)modern concept, I quite agree with that.

Q

[DavidRoss]

I'm betting that you aren't a creative artist yourself and don't work closely with any.

By the way, this isn't a criticism. It's an observation. The principle I was pointing to is one of the most fundamental concepts in the creative process.

Three more things you're wrong about.

One of the most deliciously ironic things about human nature is the inverse relationship between knowledge/understanding and arrogance.
The unrestrained ego's investment in the belief that we already know is a terrible handicap that must be overcome before learning is possible. Sadly, few in our society recognize the value of humility, thus most condemn themselves to perpetual ignorance and needlessly slow learning at best.

Here is a short biographical film about one of the most influential artists of the 20th Century, with an amusingly appropriate soundtrack.

http://www.youtube.com/v/bybPoL7-8BE&feature=fvwrel

[DavidRoss]

Besides, we're humane. You say "treated like an orangutan" like it's a bad thing.

I suspect that most orangutans treat others much better than many (most?) people.

[Elgarian]

Which all gets back to what I have supported for many years; that people make an effort to attempt to explain what they like and dislike about a recording without being comparative. This goes to whatever your stance on whatever subject. It is not being unnecessarily PC (politically correct) to say 'I like this because...".

There's another dimension to this, though, summed up in David Hume's 'Reason is the slave of the passions' - surely one of the most penetrating insights into the workings of human discourse on any subject at all. It's not an inviolable rule, but generally speaking our reasons follow our awareness of our preferences. I've no statistics, but I doubt that many people are persuaded by rational argument into a preference for HIP performance, or vice versa. I think the preference comes first, as direct perception; the reasoning comes later. The problem is that the nature of the reasoning is often misunderstood: if we think we're finding an objective justification for our preference that we think should be universally accepted on rational grounds, then that's where the trouble starts. If on the other hand we're aware that we're trying to find a common language through which best to describe to others why we have the preferences we do (which is what Gurn suggests), then all shall (by and large) be well.

For those who doubt the wisdom of Hume on this: how many people do you know who dislike HIP performances, but listen to them because they've been persuaded by the arguments of the evangelical HIPsters? How many do you know who have abandoned their HIP preferences because they've been persuaded that the grounds for attempting HIP practice are dubious?

Speaking purely personally, I love Immerseel's Beethoven not because it's HIP (though I'm very interested in the fact that it is), but because I can't help loving it. I can't imagine any argument that would impact on that. Contrariwise, when I was listening with delight last night by the fireside, to concertos from my Vivaldi box by I Solisti Veneti, I really wasn't concerned about its non-HIPness. In fact I wasn't even thinking about whether it was HIP or not.

[Gurn Blanston]

There's another dimension to this, though, summed up in David Hume's 'Reason is the slave of the passions' - surely one of the most penetrating insights into the workings of human discourse on any subject at all. It's not an inviolable rule, but generally speaking our reasons follow our awareness of our preferences. I've no statistics, but I doubt that many people are persuaded by rational argument into a preference for HIP performance, or vice versa. I think the preference comes first, as direct perception; the reasoning comes later. The problem is that the nature of the reasoning is often misunderstood: if we think we're finding an objective justification for our preference that we think should be universally accepted on rational grounds, then that's where the trouble starts. If on the other hand we're aware that we're trying to find a common language through which best to describe to others why we have the preferences we do (which is what Gurn suggests), then all shall (by and large) be well.

For those who doubt the wisdom of Hume on this: how many people do you know who dislike HIP performances, but listen to them because they've been persuaded by the arguments of the evangelical HIPsters? How many do you know who have abandoned their HIP preferences because they've been persuaded that the grounds for attempting HIP practice are dubious?

Speaking purely personally, I love Immerseel's Beethoven not because it's HIP (though I'm very interested in the fact that it is), but because I can't help loving it. I can't imagine any argument that would impact on that. Contrariwise, when I was listening with delight last night by the fireside, to concertos from my Vivaldi box by I Solisti Veneti, I really wasn't concerned about its non-HIPness. In fact I wasn't even thinking about whether it was HIP or not.

Alan,
Well, you're right, of course, comparison is necessary to the plot, so to speak. You also hit on my essential meaning. It is one thing to say "I like Immerseel in Beethoven better than I like Furtwängler because Immerseel does this and Furt does that instead and it just doesn't work for me". That's comparative, but it is also rational. If instead you were to say "I like Immerseel because he uses authentic instruments and performing style while Furtwängler is totally contaminated by post-Romantic rot and layers of accretion...etc" without being able to demonstrate what such a thing is, or how it ruins your listening pleasure, then you are much better off to leave Furt out of it altogether! So there is constructive comparison and destructive comparison. I think we all know which is preferable, don't we?    (this was all entirely made up as an example; please, no letters to the editor! )

And of course, when properly played and presented, a good performance is a good performance, no matter the rest of it. I may have mentioned at some point in time that I discovered PI totally by accident, having acquired a mass of L'Archibudelli & Tafelmusik Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart performances from my record club. With no guiding hand at the wheel to steer me off that reef, I became quite enamored of the sound of it without ever knowing what it was. It was only several years later that I became apprised of the error of my ways!    Too late for me, but perhaps it can serve as a warning to others.