The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Mandryka]

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.

Though even in baroque performance ideas seem to be in a state of turmoil. Think of the trend towards period instrument performances of Bach with cantabile articulation, symphonic scale, colours, extreme emotional intensity. Vartolo's Goldbergs, Rubsam's AoF. There are examples from Bruggen and Hengelbrock too, and Gardiner and Rannou.

And then there's Harnoncourt. The way he plays Bwv 99/1 for example, seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the cantata. I like what he does but it's romantic inspiration, the way he plays, as arbitrary as a performance of something by Herman Scherchen.

And Koopman, who seems to be driven to his ideas about ornamentation entirely by romantic inspiration. Why else would he do what he does with The Goldberg Variations?

It's as if the biggest challenges coming to HIP baroque are from PI performers, who are, I guess, reacting against the Netherlands School paradigm.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

And then there's Harnoncourt. The way he plays Bwv 99/1 for example, seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the cantata. I like what he does but it's romantic inspiration, the way he plays, as arbitrary as a performance of something by Herman Scherchen.

It's as if the biggest challenges coming to HIP baroque from from HIP performers.

Yes, Harnoncourt is definitely an island unto himself. I get the feeling it isn't about dogma with him. HIP is but one of many tools in his diverse shed.

Interestingly, I also remember hearing (at Tower Records, RIP) the Quatuor Mosaïques playing Beethoven's Op.18 and thinking just how romantic they made the music sound. Purportedly their Schubert is in the same vein. Just goes to show....

[Madiel]

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

It's only relevant if you can demonstrate there HASN'T been a similar increase in recordings of everything else.

[Brian]

[PaulSC]

Complete with a jar of leeches, looks like!

[Superhorn]

"   The London Consort of Surgeons "! ROFLOL !!!!!!!!

[Florestan]

Cartoon of the year! 

[Florestan]

Actually there is quite a bit of documentary evidence about all the things you say we have no idea whatsoever. 

We have tons of documentary evidence how music was performed at a certain place and at a certain time by a certain group of players.

Yes, we have descriptions in words of "how they played". But "how they sounded" (which is the real issue) is lost forever. Imagine all recordings extant today disappear without a trace and 200 years someone would attempt to imagine how the performers of the early 21st century sounded, based solely on reviews (say, how Nikolai Demidenko*, or Freiburger Barockorchester sounded). His chances of really knowing are exactly minus zero --- and so are ours in respect to Haydn.

(* For instance:

[Demidenko's] playing is a rare amalgamation of total command and exquisite flexibility. His tempos are just right--swift in the note-packed sections, lovely measured in the note-sparse sections; his overall sense of the music is as organic as astounding.

Nikolai Demidenko's performance is spectacular. Blazing when needed, meltingly lyrical and velvety at other times, he seems to have penetrated Medtner's idiom to the core.

With amazing technical vituosity, Demidenko carries us excitingly through these rarely performed works. His technique is boundless in it's breadth, and his firey interpretation makes us wonder why these pieces are so neglected. Such pieces are child's play under the command of this unforgettable artist.

Now, suppose you have never heard Demidenko playing and all you have are the above paragraphs. How does he sound, pray tell?)

But Andrei is right, in that we cannot know how the music sounded then. (Even the wonderful recordings we have of Prokofiev playing his own music, although they furnish us important insights, is not truly the sound which was heard in that space, at that time.)  It is ultimately impossible to hear the music as Haydn heard it.

See? Karl has got it right. 

Which is not to discount the interest, and possible importance, of the documentary evidence.

Of course not.

I think Andrei has a good point, too, in the fact that a work of art, once it heads out into the world, has something of a life of its own.  Probably not entirely divorced from what the composer had in mind, but certainly much broader in compass than the artist's intent.[/font]

My favorite example of this is Don Quijote (the novel).

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, we have descriptions in words of "how they played". But "how they sounded" (which is the real issue) is lost forever. Imagine all recordings extant today disappear without a trace and 200 years someone would attempt to imagine how the performers of the early 21st century sounded, based solely on reviews (say, how Nikolai Demidenko*, or Freiburger Barockorchester sounded). His chances of really knowing are exactly minus zero --- and so are ours in respect to Haydn.

If you hadn't selectively quoted my post you would have run into exactly the same thing you are saying, so it isn't nice to put me up as being opposed to you on that particular idea.   The fact of the matter is, no matter how you twist words around, Haydn didn't play like Clara Schumann and she didn't play like Paderewski. It is really a little bit out there to be arguing that words don't equal music. When I read that I have a "no shit?" moment. However, it is my personal opinion that many (most?) of the people who eventually read these posts vastly prefers Romantic style playing and singing anyway, which is the reason that I  don't argue this issue here very often. What's the point really?  You can argue facts but you can't argue beliefs. 

[Florestan]

If you hadn't selectively quoted my post you would have run into exactly the same thing you are saying, so it isn't nice to put me up as being opposed to you on that particular idea.

I don't and I didn't. 

The fact of the matter is, no matter how you twist words around, Haydn didn't play like Clara Schumann and she didn't play like Paderewski.

Absolutely. Did I say otherwise anywhere? 

It is really a little bit out there to be arguing that words don't equal music. When I read that I have a "no shit?" moment.

So, in your opinion, words equal music? No shit? 

Two questions then: (1) why then do we need words when we could just play the harpsichord, and conversely, why then do we need the violin when we could just talk? (2) do you mean to say that when you read words that describes music or performance, you also hear the music or the performance?

However, it is my personal opinion that many (most?) of the people who eventually read these posts vastly prefers Romantic style playing and singing anyway, which is the reason that I  don't argue this issue here very often. What's the point really?  You can argue facts but you can't argue beliefs. 

Liking or disliking a style of playing or the sound of an instrument is not a matter of beliefs, either, but of personal taste.

[Florestan]

we have plenty of "method books" which describe in detail how the music should be played. 

And yet there are no two performances alike, not even in the HIP camp. Why?

[Florestan]

Because we are human.

Aha! That's exactly my point. 

[Florestan]

Are you really arguing that words such as "andante"; "allegro"; and "adagio" or "legato"; "staccato" have absolutely no meaning?

Where did you get that idea, I wonder?

[Florestan]

Does that point really need to be made?

Sometimes it does. 

[Florestan]

From comments such as this, "Yes, we have descriptions in words of "how they played". But "how they sounded" (which is the real issue) is lost forever."

You seem to be arguing that there are no standards we have available to us for the purposes of understanding how the music of Haydn's period should sound.

I will repeat what I've said earlier: for all these standards, no two performances are alike, not even in the HIP camp. One of two, then: either the standards are not clear and explicit (IOW, they are no standards at all), or the different performers respect them only partially or disregard them altogether.

Music should not sound in any particular way; how it sounds depends entirely on the personality of the interpreter (and accepting or rejecting standards and performance practices is part and parcel of this personality). You are free to accept or reject this or that performance, and this accepting or rejecting is part and parcel of your personality. Are you sure that, were you been able to hear Haydn himself playing the keyboard, you'd like it? 

[Gurn Blanston]

So, in your opinion, words equal music? No shit? 

Two questions then: (1) why then do we need words when we could just play the harpsichord, and conversely, why then do we need the violin when we could just talk? (2) do you mean to say that when you read words that describes music or performance, you also hear the music or the performance?

Liking or disliking a style of playing or the sound of an instrument is not a matter of beliefs, either, but of personal taste.

See, you are totally misrepresenting what I said. When YOU said that words and music don't represent each other well, I said 'no shit?'. In Texas, that means, well, "Duh" in modern parlance. It does NOT mean that I say they do.   I know that Texas is a strange and wonderful place, much like Oz itself, but we do our best here to communicate in such a way that even non-Texans can handle. 

The style of playing that you prefer only matters to you. I hate to even discuss it because it doesn't matter to me what someone else likes or dislikes, as long as they listen to the music. I do, however, know what I like, and that's all that I care about.

[Florestan]

See, you are totally misrepresenting what I said. When YOU said that words and music don't represent each other well, I said 'no shit?'. In Texas, that means, well, "Duh" in modern parlance. It does NOT mean that I say they do.   I know that Texas is a strange and wonderful place, much like Oz itself, but we do our best here to communicate in such a way that even non-Texans can handle. 

Hey, please remember English is not my native tongue, let alone Texan English. I thought that "No shit?" as a reply to a statement was meant to express doubt about the statement being true, but it seems I got it the wrong way. 

it doesn't matter to me what someone else likes or dislikes, as long as they listen to the music. I do, however, know what I like, and that's all that I care about.

I subscribe to this with both my hands. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Hey, please remember English is not my native tongue, let alone Texan English. I thought that "No shit?" as a reply to a statement was meant to express doubt about the statement being true, but it seems I got it the wrong way. 

I subscribe to this with both my hands. 

Yes, exactly backwards. No shit.      No problem either.

Good, see? We agree on something. The day improves already.   0:)

[Karl Henning]

Yes; but most performers strive to emulate the intentions of the composer as they perceive them.

That's good.

Except, of course, Glenn Gould.   

That's good, too. ; )

[Florestan]

most performers strive to emulate the intentions of the composer as they perceive them. 

Agreed.

I really do not concern myself with hypotheticals such as your last sentence.

I didn't expect any answer, it was just a rhetorical question.