HIP Poll

[mn dave]

Elizabeth Farr. Should be great

Keep us posted, Brian. I might get 'em.

[Que]

Elizabeth Farr. Should be great

Haven't heard her, yet.

Brian, don't miss out on these - the best Bach on Lautenwerck I know.

 

Q

[Que]

Well, he was forced to use what was at hand. 

I meant "liked" as in: "was very fond of".

Quote:

J.S. Bach's connection with and interest in the Lautenwerk was considerable. He clearly liked the combination of softness with strength which these instruments are capable of producing, and he is known to have drawn up his own specifications for such an instrument to be built for him by Hildebrandt. In an annotation to Adlung's Musica mechanica organoedi, Johann Friedrich Agricola described a Lautenwerk that belonged to Bach:

"The editor of these notes remembers having seen and heard a "Lautenclavicymbel" in Leipzig in about 1740, designed by Mr. Johann Sebastian Bach and made by Mr. Zacharias Hildebrand, which was smaller in size than a normal harpsichord but in all other respects similar. It had two choirs of gut strings, and a so-called little octave of brass strings. It is true that in its normal setting (that is, when only one stop was drawn) it sounded more like a theorbo than a lute. But if one drew the lute-stop (such as is found on a harpsichord) together with the cornet stop [?the 4' brass stop undamped], one could almost deceive professional lutenists."

The inventory of Bach's possessions at the time of his death reveals that he owned two such instruments, as well as three harpsichords, one lute and a spinet.

[prémont]

If Bach were resurrected, I wonder what he'd say about his old material being played on harpsichords when there are perfectly fine pianos around.

If Bach were resurrected. I wonder what he would say about his music being played on pianos, when there are perfectly fine harpsichords around.

Or would he complain after hearing his Goldbergs played on the piano because they were meant for the harpsichord?

Actually I think, that he would not like the sound of the piano, even if I can not prove it. I think he would find it too dull.

He'd probably want to compose new music for the new instrument.

Why should he? The piano is designed to express a style, he did not favour.

[prémont]

The inventory of Bach's possessions at the time of his death reveals that he owned two such instruments, as well as three harpsichords, one lute and a spinet.[/i]

But no fortepiano.

[prémont]

I guess the "best" would be the latest model using the current technology. Unless somewhere along the way the instrument-makers made a wrong turn.

Long live evolution. Why do we not play everything on synthesizers.

[mn dave]

But no fortepiano.

From Wiki:

Silbermann's instruments were famously criticized by Johann Sebastian Bach around 1736,[citation needed] but later instruments encountered by Bach in his Berlin visit of 1747 apparently met with the composer's approval.

And he died three years later, right? So, no time...

[mn dave]

Long live evolution. Why do we not play everything on synthesizers.

They are not acoustic instruments.

[Brian]

Let's see if I can get this to work - a sample (very poor sound quality) of Farr's forthcoming lute-harpsichord CD. There are a few seconds of silence at the beginning.

[mp3=200,20,0,left]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/9/1859150/lutesichord-farr.mp3[/mp3]

Opening of the Lute Suite in G minor.

[prémont]

From Wiki:

Silbermann's instruments were famously criticized by Johann Sebastian Bach around 1736,[citation needed] but later instruments encountered by Bach in his Berlin visit of 1747 apparently met with the composer's approval.

And he died three years later, right? So, no time...

But please remember:

1) That the early fortepianos sounded much more like harpsichords, than the modern monster-Steinway. Many people are prone to put equal sign between fortepiano and modern Steinway, but it is actually about different instruments.

2) That Bach certainly was too polite to criticize the kings instruments at his politeness-visit to Potzdam.

3) That Bach was a personal friend of G Silbermann, and certainly knew his instruments well during the 1740es.

[prémont]

They are not acoustic instruments.

Why should this make any difference to someone believing in the evolution.

[Don]

If Bach were resurrected. I wonder what he would say about his music being played on pianos, when there are perfectly fine harpsichords around.

I think that if Bach came back to life, he'd want to compose some works for the instruments new to him.  But I doubt he'd prefer his existing works on the modern piano.

[jochanaan]

Let's see if I can get this to work - a sample (very poor sound quality) of Farr's forthcoming lute-harpsichord CD. There are a few seconds of silence at the beginning.

Opening of the Lute Suite in G minor.

A very interesting sound!  And very appropriate to the music at hand.

But the HIP movement originally started not because of some vague belief in "a better" approach, but simply to give us musicians and fans an idea of what some of our favorite masterpieces might actually have sounded like when first played.  We probably cannot recreate the mindsets of Bach's audience, for example, which would have demanded certain things and filtered what they heard; nor could we recreate the artistry of a Bach or Vivaldi or even Dittersdorf; but we can recreate the physical sound and, to a certain degree, the playing style.

It's perfectly legitimate to transcribe old music to new instruments; but we should always remember that it IS a transcription, no matter how faithfully we play the notes and ornaments or how we add period-style graces or try to recreate 18th-century phrasing.  Whether it's "better" or not is a matter of personal preference; but I confess I prefer to be as faithful to the composer as I can, and if possible, that includes the instruments I play on or listen to.

[Chaszz]

I find there to be more clarity to the music, and the sound, whether it is the instruments or how they are played, just goes better with the music Bach wrote.

Here are two short examples from Bach's Mass in B Minor:

Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan (HIP):

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://download145.mediafire.com/07mbtz9w2yeg/guj2omzjt1r/Suzuki.mp3[/mp3]

Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (Non-HIP):

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://download145.mediafire.com/iimihuiz520g/zfzetw50zci/Karajan.mp3[/mp3]



Let me know your thoughts on the differences.

These two files seem to be no longer available, after only one day. Why?

I was looking forward to the comparison. I grew up in the pre-HIP period, and I find many HIP performances a little too thin and bloodless for my taste. I also object to their overly fast tempos, and have never found a written defense or justification for these tempos. One of my favorite movements anywhere is the Cum Sancto Spiritu from the B Minor Mass, which builds inexorably and thrillingly to a grand emotional climax. Part of the actual climax is an extended phrase from a trumpet which contains two triplets, and IMO it is absolutely necessary for these triplets to be distinguishable. I've heard at least three HIP versions in which the tempos are so fast that one cannot distinguish these notes as triplets; they sound like quarter notes and I wonder if the musicians were even able to even play them as triplets at these speeds rather than as blurs. In my judgment the movement is quite damaged by these tempos, as is much of the rest of the Mass in each version. I can't imagine that Bach would have written triplets there if they can't be heard as triplets, and I think this gives a good guide for the general tempo of the movement, which each of these conductors has ignored.

John Eliot Gardner in particular to my mind is so bloodless at Bach that I find it unlistenable.

In general the HIP movement makes a claim for stylistic authenticity which, above and beyond the issue of tempos, I find unlikely, except for the probable authenticity of the instruments. My main reason is that in visual art, when attempts are made to recreate a past style authentically, it cannot be done even when the earlier work is right in front of the later artists' eyes. Renaissance artists tried to recreate ancient Greek art and could not but expressed their own age. Neoclassical artists in the late 18th century tried the same thing again and produced still a third style. So how likely is it that HIP musicians have recreated a past style they've never even heard?   

[Chaszz]

Neat game. If Bach were resurrected he'd be completely shocked by the interest, popularity and stature his music achieved over the ages. He'd be proud. And he'd have no problems whatsoever with his music being played on all kinds of modern instruments, in fact, im sure he'd be open & fascinated to the idea & honoured and very pleased at the amazing things performers have achieved thus far. It's quite amazing actually. Heck, he himself was open to doing that during his time, taking his music (& music of contemporaries) and treating it in various ways with different arrangements & transcriptions.

Very good point. He was even encouraging his children to rearrange his works for other instruments and ensembles. And he was putting secular movements into religious works and vice versa. Since his style is rather rhythmic and forthright and doesn't make use of the wide dynamics that later music developed, it is well adapted for transcriptions across various instruments. He was also respectful of and interested in a wide variety of composers who in many cases were his inferiors. I think if reincarnated he would approve of  most of what has been done with his music, and would also be highly interested in and influenced by everything composed since his time, including the piano and its literature.

[Chaszz]

Good enough for me!!   

I mean, if you actually know the instruments well enough, you wouldn't think a better
answer is needed after all.  Most antagonists of HIP don't actually know much or have
much experience with the thing at all.  Either this, or their ideas of it are grossly out of date.
It is perfectly fine for one to prefer modern instruments for any music, but to say newer
is better seems unjustifiable to me on aesthetic grounds alone.   One shouldn't forget that,
historically, composers usually wrote music to suit the media they knew -- not something
they imagined might exist one day in the future.  Before the 19th century, there was even the
question of whether composers speculated about future instruments at all.

I don't know about that. Bach was, we know, actively interested in instruments, especially keyboard ones, as they were evolving. He made part of his income inspecting and approving organs and would have been welcoming to genuine improvements. Perhaps other composers had these types of interests also. The development of the piano took place over such a long period and in so many places that one gets the impression that a general ideal was being reached out for, all along, and that musicians must have felt, at least vaguely, that better examples would come along in the future.

The Metropolitan  Museum of Art in NYC has an out-of-the-way section of four or five galleries displaying actual historical musical instruments, which is fascinating. Along with many familar instruments, there are also a great number of unfamiliar weird-looking things, especially horns, and one has the feeling of being in a museum of strange prehistoric animals and evolutionary dead-ends. The overall impression I got there was that there was a lot of experimentation in new instruments in earlier eras, and that musicians and composers of those times must naturally have been interested in it to some extent.

[Don]

John Eliot Gardner in particular to my mind is so bloodless at Bach that I find it unlistenable. 

I rather enjoy Gardiner's Bach, finding that he has a celebratory approach to Bach's music that appeals greatly to me.  This applies to both his orchestral and sacred choral recordings.

[ChamberNut]

Bach works on synthesizers too with great success, in the hands of a master that is (i.e. Wendy Carlos's glorious things)

It got me interested into classical, even though it is way unHIP.   

[Keemun]

These two files seem to be no longer available, after only one day. Why?

Sorry about that, I guess the Mediafire links expired.    I uploaded them to a different site and edited my original post with the new URL's, so everything should work now. 

[Brian]

I find there to be more clarity to the music, and the sound, whether it is the instruments or how they are played, just goes better with the music Bach wrote.

Here are two short examples from Bach's Mass in B Minor:

Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan (HIP):

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Suzuki.mp3[/mp3]

Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (Non-HIP):

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Karajan.mp3[/mp3]



Let me know your thoughts on the differences.

Honestly, I thought the Karajan performance sounded stylistically "dated", rather than the Suzuki. Maybe that's just the way my brain has been reprogrammed by HIPsters.