HIP Poll

[Keemun]

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. 

The Karajan is from 1974 and the Suzuki is from 2007, if that matters any. 

[Brian]

The Karajan is from 1974 and the Suzuki is from 2007, if that matters any. 

Oh, I meant performance, not sound. 

[Que]

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.

I think the instrument does not sound attractive, and is not well recorded...

Compare with Robert Hill on Hänssler:
(Prelude in C minor BWV 999)
[mp3=200,20,0,left]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/11/4/1562799/109-01%20Prelude%20In%20C%20Minor%20BWV%20999%20SAmple%20GMG.mp3[/mp3]



Q

[Opus106]

I like how the "lute-sichord" sounds; but is it just because it's not as "twangy" as a harpsichord and it sounds like just another (more familiar) plucked stringed instrument, I cannot say.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

I can open any Bach keyboard score (except obviously the organ works) and play it without alteration on a modern piano. Even the Goldbergs, which are more playable on a 2-manual keyboard, are completely practicable on today's pianos. There is no "transcription" involved whatsoever. Transcription requires me to physically write out a new version suitable for different instruments than the original. My point is that the keyboards of Bach's time are not so radically different from ours that we can't play the music in a largely faithful manner.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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....

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? 

I agree with most of what you say, and your last paragraph is especially compelling.

[Brian]

and is not well recorded...

It might be well recorded - remember, the sample is very poor quality (something less than 50 kbps).

[Shrunk]

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. 

You're not the only one.  I often come across paradoxical references to HIP as "modern" and modern instrument performances as "old school", and that's how my ears hear it, too.  And in a way it's true.  HIP is a recent innovation, a style and philosophy that has only existed for a few decades.

I have to say, easily the best performance I have attended over the past year was the HIP ensemble, Tafelmusik, playing Beethoven Nos. 7 and 8, directed by Bruno Weil.

[jochanaan]

...Transcription requires me to physically write out a new version suitable for different instruments than the original.

Uh--good point. Let me see if I can think of another word--er--uh...

My point is that the keyboards of Bach's time are not so radically different from ours that we can't play the music in a largely faithful manner.

That's true, but no matter how faithfully we play, the sound will be considerably different from what Bach and his audience would have heard.  I suspect that Bach would recognize his own music easily enough; whether he would approve is something that no one can know.  He might have a few tart words to say to ANY modern performer, historically informed or not, most definitely including me.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Uh--good point. Let me see if I can think of another word--er--uh... :-\That's true, but no matter how faithfully we play, the sound will be considerably different from what Bach and his audience would have heard.  I suspect that Bach would recognize his own music easily enough; whether he would approve is something that no one can know.  He might have a few tart words to say to ANY modern performer, historically informed or not, most definitely including me.

Bach is dead. What survives are Bach's scores. As performers and listeners we have an obligation to make them as musically convincing as we can to ourselves, not to some supposed sense of what Bach might have approved (which is usually just a clandestine way of talking about what we ourselves approve). That doesn't mean we overlook valid historical evidence as to how these scores might have been played in their own time. But even to speak of Bach's "audience" is an anachronism, as listening to music for its own sake as we do today was not what Bach would have expected in his own era.

[prémont]

My point is that the keyboards of Bach's time are not so radically different from ours that we can't play the music in a largely faithful manner.

Nor are the keyboards of synthesizers.

IMO every "adaption" for another instrument than the originally intended is to be regarded as a transcription. Maybe the keyboards of a harpsichord, a clavichord and a Steinway look basically similar, but the playing technique is very different, and this exerts a strong influence upon the available means of expression and the resulting character of the music.

It may also be possible to play much of Bach´s soloviolin pieces on lute or harpsichord without altering any note at all, but you would probably still regard this as a transcription ...?

[prémont]

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?   

The aim of HIP is not to make carbon copies of the presumed past, but to create relevant individual interpretations within the limits of what we know about the past. And these limits are very wide, as everyone, who has listened to different HIP versions, knows. Well, I agree, that the tempi in a number of cases are taken too fast for proper articulation of the notes. This may be a problem with some modern style performers too.

[Chaszz]

An observation I'd like to make is that I enjoy the Bach Chaconne more on the piano (as arranged by Busoni) than on the violin, for which it was written. The versions by Alicia De Larrocha and Gordon Fergus-Thompson are my favorites. (Enjoy is not really the right word for this powerful piece of tragic music, in which the earth itself seems to move unwillingly.)

Does anyone else care to comment on this piece, pro or con my opinion, or on any other piece which they enjoy more in a transcription than on the intrument(ation) it was written for? Or perhaps specific transcriptions which may bring out something of the original that the original does not.

[Brian]

An observation I'd like to make is that I enjoy the Bach Chaconne more on the piano (as arranged by Busoni) than on the violin, for which it was written.

YES.
It's ten times the piece on a piano...

[Chaszz]

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. 

The clarity of the polyphonic lines sounds about equal to me in both versions. The HIP version sounds to me rushed, and lacks some of the weightiness which I feel Bach needs. As I said I grew up in the pre-HIP era, and this is another favorite movement of mine, so that probably accounts for some of my preference here. The Karajan is a bit slow for my taste, I would take it a tad faster, but nearer to Karajan's tempo than to Suzuki's.

A better test might be the movement that follows this one without a pause. That is a slower movement with a marvelous heavy swinging weight, like a great pendulum, that I have felt loses emotionally in faster HIP tempos. Would it be possible for you to load that one up from both versions?

And while you are at it, how about the Cum Sancto Spiritu I wrote about earlier? It would be great to zero in on that pair of triplets from the climax, and would possibly demonstrate my point about tempos exactly.

Thanks in advance....
   

[Keemun]

A better test might be the movement that follows this one without a pause. That is a slower movement with a marvelous heavy swinging weight, like a great pendulum, that I have felt loses emotionally in faster HIP tempos. Would it be possible for you to load that one up from both versions?

And while you are at it, how about the Cum Sancto Spiritu I wrote about earlier? It would be great to zero in on that pair of triplets from the climax, and would possibly demonstrate my point about tempos exactly.

Thanks in advance....
   

Here are all three tracks from Bach's Mass in B Minor for comparison:

Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan (HIP):

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Suzuki.mp3[/mp3]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Suzuki%202.mp3[/mp3]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Suzuki%203.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]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Karajan%202.mp3[/mp3]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Karajan%203.mp3[/mp3]

[Rod Corkin]

 

[Chaszz]

Here are all three tracks from Bach's Mass in B Minor for comparison:

Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan (HIP):

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Suzuki.mp3[/mp3]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Suzuki%202.mp3[/mp3]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Suzuki%203.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]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Karajan%202.mp3[/mp3]
[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/4/1945216/Karajan%203.mp3[/mp3]

Thanks for this. I've had trouble replying and uploading a file of my own, lost a sizeable block of text, etc., will try again tomorrow.

[Keemun]

Thanks for this. I've had trouble replying and uploading a file of my own, lost a sizeable block of text, etc., will try again tomorrow.

You're welcome.    I will admit that Karajan is probably not the best non-HIP version of this work, but it was the best one I have for purposes of comparison.