Quote from: M forever on May 24, 2008, 12:09:19 PM
Who says that "HIP" has *nothing* to do with that? Still, gut strings and leather heads alone don't make the difference. Gut strings were very widely used well into the first decades of the 20th century, and in some parts of the world (e.g. Germany) orchestras still have pretty much exclusively natural ("leather") timpani heads. What I am concerned about is that everyone who plays any given historical music on gut strings and with hard timpani sticks, and typically at rather fast tempi is seen as "HIP". There is nothing "HIP" in that as such. What that is really about is the exploration of the complex stylistical world and performance practices from which historical music originated, in order to illuminate that music and give us more information and more expressive choices when we play and interprete that music.
I suppose, that the organological component is stressed, because we generally know more about the baroque musical instruments, than we know about baroque performance practice.
We know way more about performance practice in the baroque era than you think. There is a ton of evidence, direct and circumstantial, which still doesn't tell us "everything", but there is a lot of information avilable that most people aren't even aware of. In any case, enough to give us a fairly good idea of how they played. The instruments are actually *part* of that evidence.
Quote from: M forever on May 25, 2008, 08:01:08 AM
We know way more about performance practice in the baroque era than you think. There is a ton of evidence, direct and circumstantial, which still doesn't tell us "everything", but there is a lot of information avilable that most people aren't even aware of. In any case, enough to give us a fairly good idea of how they played. The instruments are actually *part* of that evidence.
I agree, that the instruments are part of the evidence, but this fact I included under the organological component.
What we unfortunately do not know much about, are quite a lot of the small details, which are crucial to the character of music making, especially concerning the articulation and the agogics. An example: Bach did not indicate the articulation of his WTC. This may lead someone to think, that the choice of articulation is entirely up to the discretion of the performer, but I am convinced, that Bach did not need to indicate it, because the articulation in question was obvious to a contemporary performer. It is this important knowledge or traditon, we have lost.
Again:
Quote from: M forever on May 25, 2008, 08:01:08 AM
We know way more about performance practice in the baroque era than you think.
For instance, we do actually know quite a bit about how music was articulated in Bach's time and place because there are materials which he annotated - in Leipzig, he was teaching young musicians, so in some places he wrote in the articulation because the young musicians needed some guidance and examples for how to do that. And there is a pretty extensive body of similar evidence from many sources, annotated music and texts about how to play music and similar. Not enough to know "exactly" how they played, but quite enough to get a fairly good idea. That's basically the most important insight - that they didn't just play the notes as written. That we know for absolutely sure. And we can find out quite a lot actually about how they probably played. It's just that most people don't read up on the stuff. Like for the classical period, there is a book about how to play musically interesting by Leopold Mozart, with written examples for how a "tasteful musician" could and should vary phrasing and articulation. Most "musicians" I have met in my life have never even opened the book. Imagine that - a book about music making by Mozart's father and teacher - and people just can't be bothered to read it.
Required reading:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41WPTK9PT6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: M forever on May 25, 2008, 03:58:46 PM
Again:
For instance, we do actually know quite a bit about how music was articulated in Bach's time and place because there are materials which he annotated - in Leipzig, he was teaching young musicians, so in some places he wrote in the articulation because the young musicians needed some guidance and examples for how to do that. And there is a pretty extensive body of similar evidence from many sources, annotated music and texts about how to play music and similar. Not enough to know "exactly" how they played, but quite enough to get a fairly good idea. That's basically the most important insight - that they didn't just play the notes as written. That we know for absolutely sure. And we can find out quite a lot actually about how they probably played. It's just that most people don't read up on the stuff. Like for the classical period, there is a book about how to play musically interesting by Leopold Mozart, with written examples for how a "tasteful musician" could and should vary phrasing and articulation. Most "musicians" I have met in my life have never even opened the book. Imagine that - a book about music making by Mozart's father and teacher - and people just can't be bothered to read it.
Required reading:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41WPTK9PT6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
There are in fact 3 required texts from the early Classical era that delineate many of the questions that people have today. The first is Quantz' book on playing the flute. The second is as you say, Leopold Mozart's book on violin playing. And the third is CPE Bach's book on the Art of Playing the Keyboard, which was the single most influential book to musicians and composers from 1760 to 1820 or so.
Harnoncourt's book looks fascinating, thanks for the tip. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
L'Archibudelli - Schubert - D 471 String Trio #1 in Bb 1st mvmt - Allegro
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2008, 04:15:08 PM
There are in fact 3 required texts from the early Classical era that delineate many of the questions that people have today. The first is Quantz' book on playing the flute. The second is as you say, Leopold Mozart's book on violin playing. And the third is CPE Bach's book on the Art of Playing the Keyboard, which was the single most influential book to musicians and composers from 1760 to 1820 or so.
In another thread I referred to these three publications, but they are all written by a later generation, and reflect probably another and more galant taste. Taste was fast changing in these days.
Quote from: premont on May 25, 2008, 04:29:26 PM
In another thread I referred to these three publications, but they are all written by a later generation, and reflect probably another and more galant taste. Taste was fast changing in these days.
Yes, I said specifically Classical, other than the Quantz which has roots in the Baroque, they are more modern. They may lean on
galant, as you say, but the Classical started somewhere. And even Beethoven relied on CPE Bach, also L. Mozart's book went through several printings and was influential up to the turn of the century, at least. And their influence on even High Classical is beyond doubt. I recommend to you "The Sonata in the Classic Era" by William Newman. There is scarcely a composer, even beyond Europe, that he doesn't touch on, and trace the influences from and to. One of the great books on the era in general, and the sonata in particular. Including some little bit on performance styles. I know it isn't Baroque, but then, neither was Beethoven. :D
8)
----------------
Listening to:
L'Archibudelli - D 581 String Trio #2 in Bb 4th mvmt - Rondo: Allegretto
Quote from: M forever on May 25, 2008, 03:58:46 PM
For instance, we do actually know quite a bit about how music was articulated in Bach's time and place because there are materials which he annotated - in Leipzig, he was teaching young musicians, so in some places he wrote in the articulation because the young musicians needed some guidance and examples for how to do that. And there is a pretty extensive body of similar evidence from many sources, annotated music and texts about how to play music and similar. Not enough to know "exactly" how they played, but quite enough to get a fairly good idea. That's basically the most important insight - that they didn't just play the notes as written. That we know for absolutely sure.
Yes, I know, and in many chamber-music works and orchestral works he wrote a number of articulation signs. But my point is, that these aren´t but a rough guideline, and in the practical playing-situation the possible number of interpretations of these signs are if not legio, then at least many. This is about the small nuances, which can not be written down, and which had to be transmitted through the ear. Every good teacher plays the music for the pupil to make him learn through the ear. And this is why I think, that besides individual practising, listening to the interpretations of some of the most trendsetting informed musicians (e.g. Harnoncourt) says much more about this topic than any treatise ever can do.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2008, 04:50:42 PM
Yes, I said specifically Classical, other than the Quantz which has roots in the Baroque, they are more modern. They may lean on galant, as you say, but the Classical started somewhere. And even Beethoven relied on CPE Bach, also L. Mozart's book went through several printings and was influential up to the turn of the century, at least. And their influence on even High Classical is beyond doubt. I recommend to you "The Sonata in the Classic Era" by William Newman. There is scarcely a composer, even beyond Europe, that he doesn't touch on, and trace the influences from and to. One of the great books on the era in general, and the sonata in particular. Including some little bit on performance styles. I know it isn't Baroque, but then, neither was Beethoven. :D
Well, my business was baroque music and especially J S Bach, but I thank for your recommendation, which may be useful in another context.
There is a lot specifically about baroque performance practice in Harnoncourt's book. It is a great starting point because he gives many concrete examples and cites sources which you can then explore further.
Quote from: premont on May 25, 2008, 05:00:19 PM
Yes, I know, and in many chamber-music works and orchestral works he wrote a number of articulation signs. But my point is, that these aren´t but a rough guideline, and in the practical playing-situation the possible number of interpretations of these signs are if not legio, then at least many. This is about the small nuances, which can not be written down, and which had to be transmitted through the ear. Every good teacher plays the music for the pupil to make him learn through the ear. And this is why I think, that besides individual practising, listening to the interpretations of some of the most trendsetting informed musicians (e.g. Harnoncourt) says much more about this topic than any treatise ever can do.
There is definitely some truth in that, still:
Quote from: M forever on May 25, 2008, 08:01:08 AM
We know way more about performance practice in the baroque era than you think.
Since you obviously haven't studied that subject that much yet but seem to be interested in it, I would strongly recommend you to just go ahead and start reading some of the literature. You will then also be able to understand better what performing musicians like Harnoncourt are doing, and why, what is based on information learned from studying historical performance practice, what is "speculation", what are individual artistic choices etcetcetc.
We have no recordings, so all the fine nuances are obviously still "speculation", but since music is a kind of language, the more you learn about a certain musical style, the more you begin to see its inner "logic", its "grammar" and "vocabulary", and the more you see expressive options which are more than random musical or emotional fine touches, they begin to take on "meaning". We will still never exactly how the musicians back then played, but I think it is very reasonable to assume that within a given performance style, there was probably a fairly wide spectrum of how individual performers played anyway, just like with any living musical tradition that we know of. So serious "HIP" never even thinks about recreating actual historical performances, but about exploring the expressive options for the music which are the most likely and stylistically coherent.
And there is also a big danger in "aping" performers like Harnoncourt without knowing *why* they do things the way they do. That's what a lot of people do, and there it gets silly really easily.
Beethoven sonatas played on a clavichord. That sounds delicious!! 8)
Quote from: M forever on May 25, 2008, 05:22:43 PM
We know way more about performance practice in the baroque era than you think.
Quote from: M forever on May 25, 2008, 05:22:43 PM
Since you obviously haven't studied that subject that much yet..
You seem to know quite a lot about me already. Quite remarcable.
What we agree about is, that we do not know the practice concerning the small nuances which neither can be described nor indicated in any way, but which are crucial to the artistic expression. In these matters we must rely on qualified guess and even more on artistic freedom. This was from the beginning my point.
BTW I have not read Harnoncourts Musik als Klangrede, and for that reason I have ordered it to day.
Quote from: premont on May 26, 2008, 05:49:50 AM
You seem to know quite a lot about me already. Quite remarcable.
That's not remarable at all. It's obvious that you haven't looked into the subject at all yet. That's why I am giving you a few tips for where to start.
Quote from: premont on May 26, 2008, 05:49:50 AM
What we agree about is, that we do not know the practice concerning the small nuances which neither can be described nor indicated in any way, but which are crucial to the artistic expression. In these matters we must rely on qualified guess and even more on artistic freedom. This was from the beginning my point.
I got that the first time, but what you haven't gotten yet is that there is way more to find out about historical performance practice than you imagine there is. Way more. If you actually start studying that a little bit, your views on that will change. That fine nuances are crucial for artistic expression has really not much to do with that. What historical performance practice is about isn't that, it's about the general style and range of musical means of expression and "vocabulary". How an individual musician uses these means of expression and what fine nuances he applies is obviously different from one interpreter to the next, and even though we don't have recordings, I think we can be sure that was the same back then as it is today, and these fine nuances are lost forever. But the stylistic framework of historical performance practice can be reconstructed to a much larger degree than most people think. What then happens within that reconstructed framework is still up to the individual musician, just like when you learn a language or dialect, what and exactly how you say it is individual, but the words and the way they are pronounced in a particular language or dialect really aren't, they are more universal than that and that framework can be described and defined.
Quote from: M forever on May 26, 2008, 02:22:59 PM
That's not remarable at all. It's obvious that you haven't looked into the subject at all yet. That's why I am giving you a few tips for where to start.
Quote from: premont on May 25, 2008, 03:56:26 AM
I suppose, that the organological component is stressed, because we generally know more about the baroque musical instruments, than we know about baroque performance practice.
This was what I wrote. I intended to say, that we know more about the instruments and the possible ways of playing them, than how they actually were played in the practical performance situation i.e. in relation to a given piece of music. How you can conclude from this, that I know nothing about performance practice at all, is beyond me. And I want to maintain, that the things we do not know - small as they may seem to you, never-the-less are important because they completely determine the character of the music.
One example: Imagine J S Bach playing Contrapunctus I from The Art of Fugue on his harpsichord, what he surely did, but would he prefer the organ? Which tuning did he use? Lehmanns? Equal tuning or something else? Which registration? Is this a "plenum"-piece (8´,8´,4´ or maybe even 16´,8´,8´,4´ - if he had access to a 16´harpsichord in Leipzig) or a "solo"-piece (8´)? Which tempo? We know, that he played "fast", but what is fast? And which articulation? He probably played the main theme non-legato, but how detached was his non-legato in this particular piece, the intended character of which we do not even know. Is the music intended to "sing" or to "speak". In the preface to the Inventions he opts for a singing style. Do we know what he meant? And the consequences for the articulation? And is this compatible with the "rhetorical" theory? How much is up to the artistic freedom? I am not saying, that we must play the piece exactly in the way Bach did - this is per definition not possible, but without knowing most of the things, I mention, we may well in the end produce a parody of the piece, Bach imagined in his head. And this is surely not the purpose of the HIP movement.
Quote from: premont on May 26, 2008, 11:05:51 PM
One example: Imagine J S Bach playing Contrapunctus I from The Art of Fugue on his harpsichord, what he surely did, but would he prefer the organ? Which tuning did he use? Lehmanns? Equal tuning or something else? Which registration? Is this a "plenum"-piece (8´,8´,4´ or maybe even 16´,8´,8´,4´ - if he had access to a 16´harpsichord in Leipzig) or a "solo"-piece (8´)? Which tempo? We know, that he played "fast", but what is fast? And which articulation? He probably played the main theme non-legato, but how detached was his non-legato in this particular piece, the intended character of which we do not even know. Is the music intended to "sing" or to "speak". In the preface to the Inventions he opts for a singing style. Do we know what he meant? And the consequences for the articulation? And is this compatible with the "rhetorical" theory? How much is up to the artistic freedom? I am not saying, that we must play the piece exactly in the way Bach did - this is per definition not possible, but without knowing most of the things, I mention, we may well in the end produce a parody of the piece, Bach imagined in his head. And this is surely not the purpose of the HIP movement.
I suppose that Bach would not have applied the same stylistic protocols to all pieces he played - stilo antico and stile galante, stile francaise, accompanying vocal music written in the nepolitan style, etc. - all probably required a different approach. The contrapunctus is a self-consciously old-style piece, ergo it would not fit the "rhetorical" approach which may work wonder in more modern contexts.
Quote from: traverso on May 27, 2008, 05:07:29 AM
I suppose that Bach would not have applied the same stylistic protocols to all pieces he played - stilo antico and stile galante, stile francaise, accompanying vocal music written in the nepolitan style, etc. - all probably required a different approach.
Agreed, and I neither said nor meant anything else.
Quote from: traverso on May 27, 2008, 05:07:29 AM
The contrapunctus is a self-consciously old-style piece, ergo it would not fit the "rhetorical" approach which may work wonder in more modern contexts.
I wonder, how much "stilo antico" it really is. Buxtehude e.g. wrote fugues in a similar style in his organ preludes, and in his fugues I feel a distinct rhetorical character. And look at the conclusion of the AoF Contrapunctus I, which Bach added for the printed version (compare with the earlier autograph version), - a very dramatic conclusion including more rhethorical pauses leading up to the last statement of the main theme.
Quote from: premont on May 27, 2008, 09:00:22 AM
I wonder, how much "stilo antico" it really is.
Quite stilo antico when compared to most fugues written at the time - not every composer then was a Fux or some sort, and by most 18th century standards Bach certainly belonged to the "old camp" of the day, dating terribly towards the end of his career. (That is why I think KdF sure was an expression of stylistic conservatism, if not quite archeology.) I am not sure what sort of Baroque music suits the "rhetorical" approach best -- debatably so in Bach's case imo.
Quote from: traverso on May 28, 2008, 06:13:53 AM
Quite stilo antico when compared to most fugues written at the time - not every composer then was a Fux or some sort, and by most 18th century standards Bach certainly belonged to the "old camp" of the day, dating terribly towards the end of his career. (That is why I think KdF sure was an expression of stylistic conservatism, if not quite archeology.) I am not sure what sort of Baroque music suits the "rhetorical" approach best -- debatably so in Bach's case imo.
The term Stilo Antico refers to a certain kind of sacral renaissance vocal polyphony e.g. the typical Palestrina-style. Compared to this style there is not much Stilo Antico in most of Bach´s keyboard fugues, which usually are very instrumental in conception. Have a look at the score of the bespoken Contrapunctus I and observe all these agile and jumping quavers, certainly not reflecting a vocal style. Maybe the minims of the main theme induce some to regard this as Stylo Antico, but I regard this reading to be over-interpretation. There are more clear-cut examples of Stilo Antico in Bach´s instrumental fugues, first and foremost in the Clavierübung III (first part of Es-major fugue BWV 552 and the Choral "Aus tiefer Not" BWV 686) but also elsewhere e.g. the Allabreve D-major BWV 589. Regarding the Art of Fugue I think, that only the first part of the unfinished Contrapunctus 14 is written in clear Stylo Antico. Even the four-part mirror fugue gets too "instrumental" on its way.
Quote from: premont on May 28, 2008, 08:40:12 AM
The term Stilo Antico refers to a certain kind of sacral renaissance vocal polyphony e.g. the typical Palestrina-style. Compared to this style there is not much Stilo Antico in most of Bach´s keyboard fugues, which usually are very instrumental in conception. Have a look at the score of the bespoken Contrapunctus I and observe all these agile and jumping quavers, certainly not reflecting a vocal style. Maybe the minims of the main theme induce some to regard this as Stylo Antico, but I regard this reading to be over-interpretation. There are more clear-cut examples of Stilo Antico in Bach´s instrumental fugues, first and foremost in the Clavierübung III (first part of Es-major fugue BWV 552 and the Choral "Aus tiefer Not" BWV 686) but also elsewhere e.g. the Allabreve D-major BWV 589. Regarding the Art of Fugue I think, that only the first part of the unfinished Contrapunctus 14 is written in clear Stylo Antico. Even the four-part mirror fugue gets too "instrumental" on its way.
Let say "ricercar" rather than "stilo antico" then. All my arguments still stand.
Quote from: traverso on May 30, 2008, 02:48:06 AM
Let say "ricercar" rather than "stilo antico" then. All my arguments still stand.
Yes, that is eatable, associating the style with similar works by Frescobaldi and Froberger among others.
Certainly I am neither bothered nor feel obliged by the contemporary opinions of Bach´s works,
and in a way I find, that The AoF is written entirely in its own unique timeless style.
Quote from: premont on May 30, 2008, 03:21:44 AM
...and in a way I find, that The AoF is written entirely in its own unique timeless style.
I don't really share this finding of yours, sorry to say. For me, some fugues in WTC sound as
self-consciously retro as many of the contrapuncti. Applying "rhetorical" gestures in these pieces
can seem pretty "forced," depending on one's own feel about the music (as a listener in the 20th/21st
century).
Quote from: traverso on May 30, 2008, 03:29:53 AM
I don't really share this finding of yours, sorry to say. For me, some fugues in WTC sound as
self-consciously retro as many of the contrapuncti. Applying "rhetorical" gestures in these pieces
can seem pretty "forced," depending on one's own feel about the music (as a listener in the 20th/21st
century).
In the end I think, it is about, how much we want to try to recreate the presumed original intentions of the music, if we are capable of doing it at all after all these years with romantic performance traditions.
Maybe you should read Harnoncourts "Musik als Klangrede".
Quote from: premont on May 30, 2008, 03:39:01 AM
In the end I think, it is about, how much we want to try to recreate the presumed original intentions of the music, if we are capable of doing it at all after all these years with romantic performance traditions.
Maybe you should read Harnoncourts "Musik als Klangrede".
I do want to hear the "presumed original intentions of the music" recreated, except that that will not be in the "rhetorical" way which you specified.
I have read the Harnoncourt and I think his argument is too ambitious as some kind of "all purpose theory" for early music.
You apparently haven't understood the book. There is no "all purpose theory" in there. Klangrede is just one of many aspects of "early" or let's say, "earlier" music performance which are discussed in the book.