The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Que]

For what it's worth, my preference for Brahms performances is very close to what you expressed.  I prefer performances which emphasize the lyrical in Brahms rather than the monumental or dramatic.  (Oddly, I have never enjoyed Mackerras's set of recordings which overtly takes an HIP approach, my favorite is the Barbirolli cycle, which takes a generally gentle approach to the music.)  What raised red flags was the formulation, implying regard those who don't share your view have failed to discover the True Brahms.

You can raise all the red flags you want, I expressed my personal view on Brahms and acknowledged that it is an minority view:

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 BöhmJochum/Gilels). Brahms wasn't like that, if anyone beliefs me...

Q

And if I say, jokingly, "if anyone beliefs me", I'm inviting people to see things from another perspective than the conventional image of Brahms. I don't consider that rude, insulting, condescending, arrogant, distasteful or whatever generalised reproaches I have read on these pages the last few days to anonymous lovers of period performances.

I'm wondering who these people are, that are into that GMG-conspiracy of HIP superiority, condescension, and subtle but distasteful pedantry, treating those who listen to Bach on the piano like Orangutans?  Who are crying foul, but are themselves to blame for all the dirt that is being thrown in their direction?

I'm wondering what is really going on here? It is not a HIP-conspiracy, that much I know for certain.

Q

[milk]

Oh but they do discuss period instruments -- Paul Ellie is quick to point out the importance of playing the music on  baroque organs, and he has a view on the appropriateness of fortepianos for Bach. I thought his view about harpsichord for the modern audience --to do with modern expectations that audiences have for variety of colour -- was not uninteresting. It's interesting how reticent he is about the modern piano.


I also felt all the stuff about Schweitzer was interesting , about how Schweitzer's recordings provide a link to a very early performance tradition, something which Ellie seems to think is important.

The most enigmatic thing he says is right near the start, when he seems to be committing to some  version of historicism --"To get a hold of Bach you need to get a hold of who he was." But the sentence is quite obscure. Still I wouldn't mind seeing the book, I thought he came across well.

Thanks for posting this -- I enjoyed the interview.

I'm glad you could enjoy it. I agree that he had some interesting things to say. I'd like to take a look at the book.

[Superhorn]

   One thing that has particularly bothered me about so many HIP performances and recordings has been the sound of the gut strings.
I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se as some here have unfairly accused me of being, but those gut strings have often sounded awful to my ears .  They produced a horrible nasal, pinched, wheezing sound  . 
   And we now know that string vibrato WAS used  long before the 20th century.  Maybe not as much  as in the 20th , but totally vibratoless performances are NOT authentic .  In his treatise on violin playing, Leopold Mozart actually complained about some  string players of his day who used excessive vibrato !

[Sammy]

   One thing that has particularly bothered me about so many HIP performances and recordings has been the sound of the gut strings.
I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se as some here have unfairly accused me of being, but those gut strings have often sounded awful to my ears .  They produced a horrible nasal, pinched, wheezing sound  . 
   And we now know that string vibrato WAS used  long before the 20th century.  Maybe not as much  as in the 20th , but totally vibratoless performances are NOT authentic .  In his treatise on violin playing, Leopold Mozart actually complained about some  string players of his day who used excessive vibrato !

Well, I love the sound of gut strings and hate vibrato.  I don't think we should listen to music together.

[DavidRoss]

I love the sound of gut strings and wonder what's going on with the hearing of those who claim not to like them in general. Gut sounds warmer and fuller and livelier than steel, to me, with richer overtones instead of one-dimensional steeliness. Who wouldn't prefer that, I think -- aside from their expense, that is!

I also like judicious vibrato used expressively. Wide, warbling vibrato sounds ugly to me, and constant vibrato loses its expressive power, just as constant cursing diminishes the expressive potential of judicious swearing.

[Marc]

   One thing that has particularly bothered me about so many HIP performances and recordings has been the sound of the gut strings.
I'm not opposed to HIP performances per se as some here have unfairly accused me of being, but those gut strings have often sounded awful to my ears .  They produced a horrible nasal, pinched, wheezing sound  . 
   And we now know that string vibrato WAS used  long before the 20th century.  Maybe not as much  as in the 20th , but totally vibratoless performances are NOT authentic .  In his treatise on violin playing, Leopold Mozart actually complained about some  string players of his day who used excessive vibrato !

Leopold Mozart was complaining about violinists who were trembling on almost each and every note as if they had "permanent fever".  So yes, vibrato was used during midst 18th century, but Leopold Mozart wanted vibrato only to be used on sustained notes and as an ornament at the end of a musical sentence.

I agree with Superhorn that it's nonsense to call completely non-vibrato playing 'authentic', but:

A. before the HIP-revolution, most modern orchestras and musicians played their 18th century-and-older music with almost continuous vibrato, which is definitely 'non-authentic' and, IMO, sounds nothing but ugly. And I guess that the vibratoless 'movement' was a hefty reaction to that.
B. nowadays most PI ensembles and musicians do not play completely vibratoless anymore. Maybe you should renew your listening.

Personally, like Don/Bulldog/Sammy and DavidRoss: I love the sound of gut strings.

And, very personally, Anno Domini 2012, HIP is just there and it's proven its worth. To me, it isn't really part of any debate anymore.

What am I doing here?

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/runaway.wav

[Gurn Blanston]

I love the sound of gut strings and wonder what's going on with the hearing of those who claim not to like them in general. Gut sounds warmer and fuller and livelier than steel, to me, with richer overtones instead of one-dimensional steeliness. Who wouldn't prefer that, I think -- aside from their expense, that is!

I also like judicious vibrato used expressively. Wide, warbling vibrato sounds ugly to me, and constant vibrato loses its expressive power, just as constant cursing diminishes the expressive potential of judicious swearing.

Well, I love the sound of gut strings and hate vibrato.  I don't think we should listen to music together.

Ditto e ditto. Although I don't wonder about the people who don't; there are amazing variations in what people hear. It is hard to avoid wondering how much is hearing what we want to hear and how much is actually hearing something differently than 95% of the rest of the world hears it. 

[Scarpia]

Any judgment about the timbre of instruments is going to be impacted by the recording technique.   DG recordings always sound too bright to me, and compounding that with period instruments sometimes creates something too shrill for my taste.  Gardiner's recordings with his period instrument band sounds a lot better to me on Erato than on DG.   My favorite is Harnoncourt's Concentus Musicus Wien, and that may have something to do with the natural tonal balance of Telefunken/Teldec recordings.

That said, a big breakthrough in my appreciation of gut strings came from this superb recording:

[asin]B000002BZM[/asin]

[Que]

And, very personally, Anno Domini 2012, HIP is just there and it's proven its worth. To me, it isn't really part of any debate anymore.

What am I doing here?

Quite, Marc. I'm waking up to the wisdom in that.

Q

[Gurn Blanston]

Any judgment about the timbre of instruments is going to be impacted by the recording technique.   DG recordings always sound too bright to me, and compounding that with period instruments sometimes creates something too shrill for my taste.  Gardiner's recordings with his period instrument band sounds a lot better to me on Erato than on DG.   My favorite is Harnoncourt's Concentus Musicus Wien, and that may have something to do with the natural tonal balance of Telefunken/Teldec recordings.

That said, a big breakthrough in my appreciation of gut strings came from this superb recording:

[asin]B000002BZM[/asin]

I agree with this all around, especially the plug for the Brahms. That was my first Romantic PI recording and always loved it.   Actually, all of the L'Archibudelli recordings on Vivarte have great sound. The mic placement always seems just right, which is a difference maker for sure.

[trung224]

  Let me say something. I think HIP trend is great to reborn baroque and early music, which is under-appreciated with the MI performance. Most of baroque in my collection are HIP, and I enjoy what lively, joyous HIP in Haydn, Mozart and even Schubert(early symphonies). But sometimes I think HIP trend is going too far, especially when coming to Beethoven.
      First, about background,Beethoven didn't live in Haydn's era. His mature symphonies were written in the time of French Revolution, and he was deeply influenced by politics. We all know that originally Beethoven dedicated his third symphonies to Napoleon, and refused to do  when Napoleon betrayed the Revolution and became the Emperor. Beethoven wrote the name "Eroica" to tribute to French Revolution and the "heroic Napoleon" who was died in his mind. I think the "authentic" Beethoven's third symphony performance must represent this. But sadly, HIP performances (which I have heard) can not fulfill this task. They are all lightweight, free of struggle. You can talk this lightweight quality is on the note and score, but Beethoven (like Shostakovich) is the son of their era, we can not see the score and play, no matter its background and circumstances.
   Second, about musical quality, HIP deceives some important quality makes Beethoven's music unique and ahead of his time. Those are adagio movement and the funeral march, which was developed and became important with Bruckner's and Mahler's music. When comparing these movements of all HIP performances I have heard with some good performances in MI (Kubelik, Böhm, Cluytens) not to mention  monumental performances (Furtwängler, Toscanini, Abendroth, Karajan, Klemperer, Fricsay), they sound lightweight and lifeless. And the famous choral movement in the Ninth symphony becomes anemic and less impact under HIP performance. And even the most dynamic and powerful outer movements in HIP performances (Harnoncourt, Chailly) sound underpowered when comparing with Tocanini's, Kleiber's, Karajan's, Reiner's account. To sum up, HIP performances make Beethoven sound like Haydn or early Mozart, it is valid but called it the authentic way when performing Beethoven just because of styles of playing in this era and old instrument is IMHO silly (not to mention that Beethoven was deaf when wrote the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and we don't know what kind of instrument sound in his brain when he composed)

[Mandryka]

I don"t think what you say is true of Beethoven's small scale music. The Turner Quartet in op 59, Beghin and Komen in some of the piano sonatas -- these are some of the most stimulating post war Beethoven records. What you say may be true of symphonies, I haven't much explored what's happening there. Though I did get a lot out of Ensemble 28's Eroica, and Savall's. And Bruggen in symphonies 1 and 2, the luve Paris performance which was distributed in the web.Norrington live too.

What I'm not at all sure about is how much of the interest comes from Hipness. With baroque music, Bach, the Hip performers had new ideas about articulation and agogics, for example, which made what they did refreshing. Leonhardt's the obvious example. But I'm not sure that, e.g., the Turner's  ideas about texture and drama in the Op 59s are derived from ideas about authentic Beethoven performance.

[Scarpia]

  Let me say something. I think HIP trend is great to reborn baroque and early music, which is under-appreciated with the MI performance. Most of baroque in my collection are HIP, and I enjoy what lively, joyous HIP in Haydn, Mozart and even Schubert(early symphonies). But sometimes I think HIP trend is going too far, especially when coming to Beethoven.
      First, about background,Beethoven didn't live in Haydn's era. His mature symphonies were written in the time of French Revolution, and he was deeply influenced by politics. We all know that originally Beethoven dedicated his third symphonies to Napoleon, and refused to do  when Napoleon betrayed the Revolution and became the Emperor. Beethoven wrote the name "Eroica" to tribute to French Revolution and the "heroic Napoleon" who was died in his mind. I think the "authentic" Beethoven's third symphony performance must represent this. But sadly, HIP performances (which I have heard) can not fulfill this task. They are all lightweight, free of struggle. You can talk this lightweight quality is on the note and score, but Beethoven (like Shostakovich) is the son of their era, we can not see the score and play, no matter its background and circumstances.
   Second, about musical quality, HIP deceives some important quality makes Beethoven's music unique and ahead of his time. Those are adagio movement and the funeral march, which was developed and became important with Bruckner's and Mahler's music. When comparing these movements of all HIP performances I have heard with some good performances in MI (Kubelik, Böhm, Cluytens) not to mention  monumental performances (Furtwängler, Toscanini, Abendroth, Karajan, Klemperer, Fricsay), they sound lightweight and lifeless. And the famous choral movement in the Ninth symphony becomes anemic and less impact under HIP performance. And even the most dynamic and powerful outer movements in HIP performances (Harnoncourt, Chailly) sound underpowered when comparing with Tocanini's, Kleiber's, Karajan's, Reiner's account. To sum up, HIP performances make Beethoven sound like Haydn or early Mozart, it is valid but called it the authentic way when performing Beethoven just because of styles of playing in this era and old instrument is IMHO silly (not to mention that Beethoven was deaf when wrote the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and we don't know what kind of instrument sound in his brain when he composed)

I find myself in almost complete disagreement.  I have nothing against modern instrument recordings of Beethoven and think they are a wonderful way to appreciate what Beethoven was trying to express.  But to say that performance of Beethoven's music using instruments and an ensemble size of Beethoven's time makes the music sound "like Haydn" or "underpowered" puzzles me.  To the extent that Beethoven wrote music that was fundamentally different from what Mozart and Haydn wrote, the music sounds different despite being played with similar forces.   And the fact that the forces are smaller doesn't prevent them from generating great dynamic contrasts, which to my ear, is what imparts "power" to a performance, rather than sheer volume of sound.

[trung224]

I don"t think what you say is true of Beethoven's small scale music. The Turner Quartet in op 59, Beghin and Komen in some of the piano sonatas -- these are some of the most stimulating post war Beethoven records. What you say may be true of symphonies, I haven't much explored what's happening there. Though I did get a lot out of Ensemble 28's Eroica, and Savall's. And Bruggen in symphonies 1 and 2, the luve Paris performance which was distributed in the web.Norrington live too.

All I say is about the symphonies from the Third Symphony (like you, I enjoy  1st and 2nd Symphony by Brüggen). I have not heard HIP in Piano Sonatas and String Quartets

[trung224]

I find myself in almost complete disagreement.  I have nothing against modern instrument recordings of Beethoven and think they are a wonderful way to appreciate what Beethoven was trying to express.  But to say that performance of Beethoven's music using instruments and an ensemble size of Beethoven's time makes the music sound "like Haydn" or "underpowered" puzzles me.  To the extent that Beethoven wrote music that was fundamentally different from what Mozart and Haydn wrote, the music sounds different despite being played with similar forces.   And the fact that the forces are smaller doesn't prevent them from generating great dynamic contrasts, which to my ear, is what imparts "power" to a performance, rather than sheer volume of sound.

Technically, the impact was generated by both dynamic contrast and volume and if you have only one tools (dynamic contrast), the result IMHO is not good than having both tools. This case is like when you must do a mathematics exercise, you have your brain to create the method and the calculator. If you don't have the calculator, you have easily the mistake and take much more time. Back to music, it is true that Beethoven's and Haydn's music is different despite being played with similar forces, but it is the fact that HIP performance makes them sound much more close than MI performance. And I think the best way is performance Beethoven's and Haydn's music in very different way: Beethoven is heroic, superb dramatic, powerful, rage, full of struggle and Haydn is lively, joyous, witness.

[Scarpia]

  Technically, the impact was generated by both dynamic contrast and volume and if you have only one tools (dynamic contrast), the result IMHO is not good than having both tools. This case is like when you must do a mathematics exercise, you have your brain to create the method and the calculator. If you don't have the calculator, you have easily the mistake and take much more time. Back to music, it is true that Beethoven's and Haydn's music is different despite being played with similar forces, but it is the fact that HIP performance makes them sound much more close than MI performance. And I think the best way is performance Beethoven's and Haydn's music in very different way: Beethoven is heroic, superb dramatic, powerful, rage, full of struggle and Haydn is lively, joyous, witness.

The small forces of Beethoven's day were matched to small performance venues.  If the smaller ensemble is recorded in an appropriate space, it sounds just as "powerful," in my experience.   I also find the fact that Beethoven's music stresses original instruments to their limits adds a certain excitement to the performances, which is absent when performed on modern instruments.

[trung224]

The small forces of Beethoven's day were matched to small performance venues.  If the smaller ensemble is recorded in an appropriate space, it sounds just as "powerful," in my experience.   I also find the fact that Beethoven's music stresses original instruments to their limits adds a certain excitement to the performances, which is absent when performed on modern instruments.

You are right about small performance venues but I think when comparing sound of 100 members of HIP orchestra and 100 members of BPO or CSO playing Beethoven 5 in the same venues, certain MI performance has the advantage of powerful quality. And I respectfully disagree with you about a extra excitement. I think put the musicians (who control instruments) to their limits is the ability of great Beethoven conductors. Nowadays, this kind of conductor is no longer existed, but in the past with the tyrann like Toscanini, Reiner, Karajan, Kleiber, Szell or hyper-romantic like Furtwängler, Abendroth, they put musicians to limits, drive music to hell and create the unsurpassed dramatic, excitement and tension + plus the depth, sorrow, painful, anger slow movement (which is IMHO the key advantage of Beethoven's music)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

What I'm not at all sure about is how much of the interest comes from Hipness. With baroque music, Bach, the Hip performers had new ideas about articulation and agogics, for example, which made what they did refreshing. Leonhardt's the obvious example. But I'm not sure that, e.g., the Turner's  ideas about texture and drama in the Op 59s are derived from ideas about authentic Beethoven performance.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make earlier on. But it sorta got drowned out.

I think the dividing line between "right" and "wrong" gets fuzzier the further we get from baroque.

[Mirror Image]

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make earlier on. But it sorta got drowned out.

I think the dividing line between "right" and "wrong" gets fuzzier the further we get from baroque.

Great avatar, DD! Hope you like mine too.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Great avatar, DD! Hope you like mine too.

Ha! Great choice, MI!

I guess that makes us brothers...at least for awhile!