The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[George]

I need more help here, please post your thoughts.

[Harry]

Well what is exactly the question?. And where is Que when you need him!

[George]

Well what is exactly the question?. And where is Que when you need him!

The question(s) are:

1. What is HIP?

2. Why do you like or dislike it?

3. Which composers do you prefer as HIP?


(Que will be along soon, you can bet your CPO catalog on it.) 

[Que]

I'll repost a reply that I made to Val's post on the Haydn SQ's thread:

But the point is that I don't believe, in art, in any kind of recreation of an historical style. HIP means only a modern tendency of interpretation. Any kind of musical interpretation depends on the personality of an artist of the present, according to techniques teached in the present, for a contemporary listener. Adolf Busch was HIP in 1935, Munchinger in 1955, Goebel in 1985, Koopman today. 
When I was 15 years old I loved the Four Seasons played by Munchinger. Then came Marriner. And today I wouldn't dream of listening this work played in their style. I have Biondi and other modern interpreters. But it is always a matter of choices based in a modern sensibility. I don't care if Vivaldi played like Biondi, Huggett or Standage.

I feel HIP is an attempt to approximate an historical style. I don't think it's possible to recreate an historical style in absolute terms (100% correct), but I do feel it is possible to come closer to that ideal and that efforts to that effect bring me closer to the composer. Perhaps the idea to "recover" original performance practices is a very modern idea, fuelled by the changing of tastes. But I doubt if that means that HIP can be equated to modern taste. Maybe HIP influences modern taste, instead of the other way around? 

Personally I didn't like any Haydn before encountering HIP, and not much Bach or Mozart either. (And I do care if Vivaldi is played by Biondi or Huggett, but don't know if that has to do with a preference for HIP in general  ).

Q

[Norbeone]

It sounds like you know what HIP is, but i'll give my brief description anyway.

'Historically Informed Performance' is basically trying to recreate a performance and interpretation of a piece as close as possible to how it would have been performed at the time of its composition. Though, the use of 'period instruments' or not using them isn't, in my opinion, a neccesary element of creating a HIP performance.

Do I like it? I certainly find it interesting and useful, but I do not like when people suggest that HIP is the only valid way to go. Then it becomes almost destructive of the whole essence of interpretation. And that of course is the people's fault, not HIP's.

I generally only consider music of the early classical way back to early renaissance to be of great interest for the HIP approach, but that's just my own preference.

[locrian]

Personally I didn't like any Haydn before encountering HIP, and not much Bach or Mozart either. (And I do care if Vivaldi is played by Biondo or Huggett, but don't know if that has to do with a preference for HIP in general  ).

You didn't like Haydn, Bach or Mozart until it was played on crappy, old instruments? 

[Que]

You didn't like Haydn, Bach or Mozart until it was played on crappy, old instruments? 

Quite. 

Q



PS Most famous violinists play on a "crappy" old violin from the baroque era....
Though mostly altered and without gut strings - though Heifetz, of all people, actually did use gut strings.

[Harry]

You didn't like Haydn, Bach or Mozart until it was played on crappy, old instruments? 

Old they may be, but not crappy Dave, no my dear fellow, certainly not crappy.
I am of the same opinion as Que. Never heard Haydn until on period instruments, but I do not dislike modern approach, far from it.

[locrian]

Quite. 

You, sir, are a gnarly dude. 

[locrian]

Old they may be, but not crappy Dave, no my dear fellow, certainly not crappy.
I am of the same opinion as Que. Never heard Haydn until on period instruments, but I do not dislike modern approach, far from it.

Well, as long as it sounds good, I don't care what they play it on.

[Harry]

Well, as long as it sounds good, I don't care what they play it on.

See, I thought you would think sense!

[bhodges]

I'm sort of with Que, in that my interest in Bach, Mozart, Vivaldi and others got reinvigorated when I started listening to HIP recordings.  One of the first discs I ever bought was Trevor Pinnock's Handel (Water Music and Royal Fireworks) and it was a revelation.  And that's now a pretty old recording, relatively speaking!

Others followed...Il Giardino Armonico doing Vivaldi's Concerti da Camera, Rinaldo Alessandrini in Vivaldi's Gloria and more recently, the Bach Brandenburg's...all very stimulating.



Over the years not only has the sound quality increased, but the musicianship as well.  I suspect there is a real difference in the HIP musicians of today and their forerunners.  But what I most like about these recordings is their vitality.  Before hearing Il Giardino Armonico, I honestly had "had it" with Vivaldi for awhile--just no interest in hearing much of his work at all.  But the first time I heard them it was just like "wow, this is really exciting!"  Most good HIP recordings have that same energy. 

--Bruce

[Mark]

Do I like it? I certainly find it interesting and useful, but I do not like when people suggest that HIP is the only valid way to go. Then it becomes almost destructive of the whole essence of interpretation.

This I agree with.

[locrian]

Why would a HIP performance have more vitality than a modern interpretation? That makes no sense to me.

[Mark]

Is Herreweghe classed as HIP? I've been meaning to start a thread on him, actually. Hear his version of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony - absolutely outclasses Harnoncourt's. Like seeing an Old Master (well, hearing ) stripped of years of dirt and grime: a revelation of texture and colour. If this is what HIP does for classical music, I'm in.

[locrian]

Like seeing an Old Master (well, hearing ) stripped of years of dirt and grime: a revelation of texture and colour. If this is what HIP does for classical music, I'm in.

This sounds like critic-ese to me. I mean, what are you saying here? What does he do that no one else does?

[bhodges]

Why would a HIP performance have more vitality than a modern interpretation? That makes no sense to me.

I'm not saying that HIP always does, just to my ears.  I like the wiry, lean sound of the instruments and the faster tempi.  Alessandrini's Gloria is like a supersonic jet, it's so fast. 

I like all these composers on modern instruments, too, but right now my ears like them even better from HIP ensembles.

--Bruce

[Mark]

This sounds like critic-ese to me. I mean, what are you saying here? What does he do that no one else does?

Tell you what: soon as I get a moment to myself, I'll upload two identical tracks from the Ninth Symphony, one with Herreweghe in charge, the other with Harnoncourt at the helm. Then you can judge for yourself.

[locrian]

Tell you what: soon as I get a moment to myself, I'll upload two identical tracks from the Ninth Symphony, one with Herreweghe in charge, the other with Harnoncourt at the helm. Then you can judge for yourself.

Sure. Make me do all the work. 

[George]

I'll repost a reply that I made to Val's post on the Haydn SQ's thread:

I feel HIP is an attempt to approximate an historical style. I don't think it's possible to recreate an historical style in absolute terms (100% correct), but I do feel it is possible to come closer to that ideal and that efforts to that effect bring me closer to the composer.

Ok, when you say "closer to the composer," do you mean closer to what the composer would have heard or have been able to hear during his/her life?

I ask because I have to imagine that at least a few composers, (Beethoven's late piano sonatas come to mind) who would prefer a more modern piano with less of the limitations of his day. In this case, wouldn't a more modern piano get us closer to what the composer desired?

Perhaps the idea to "recover" original performance practices is a very modern idea, fuelled by the changing of tastes.

Yes, I wonder when people first started playing Bach on piano.

Personally I didn't like any Haydn before encountering HIP, and not much Bach or Mozart either. (And I do care if Vivaldi is played by Biondi or Huggett, but don't know if that has to do with a preference for HIP in general  ).

Q

I can say that many Baroque composers did little for me until I heard Biondi and Carmigniola.