Poll
Question:
What do you think of HIP?
Option 1: I care a lot.
votes: 23
Option 2: I can take them or leave them.
votes: 15
Option 3: I avoid them like the plague.
votes: 3
;D
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 06:23:02 AM
;D
I'm in the middle on this one. Half the time, I don't even know if it is HIP or not HIP? Apparently my Harnoncourt set of Beethoven symphonies is HIP, but played on modern instruments, so is it really HIP then? ???
I care a lot, obviously! 8)
I have only one HIP recording till now, but I want more. :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on June 04, 2008, 06:25:27 AM
I'm in the middle on this one. Half the time, I don't even know if it is HIP or not HIP? Apparently my Harnoncourt set of Beethoven symphonies is HIP, but played on modern instruments, so is it really HIP then? ???
Period (playing) practice: Yes
Period instruments: No
Quasi-HIP. ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on June 04, 2008, 06:25:27 AM
...played on modern instruments...
My preference. After all, wouldn't the composer want the music played on the best possible instrument?
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 06:29:12 AM
My preference. After all, wouldn't the composer want the music played on the best possible instrument?
I used to feel that way, but then I discovered how much better (most) HIP Bach sounds (to my ears).* That opened the door to other HIP performances (Beethoven, Vivaldi, etc.) I voted "I care a lot", but really my caring decreases as the music become more recent. I care much more for the Baroque period than I do for the Romantic period, with the Classical period falling somewhere in between. In fact, while I've not heard HIP Bruckner, I suspect that I wouldn't care much for it.
* I just remembered that I don't care much for HIP
Cello Suites, so I cannot say that I like all HIP Bach better.
Quote from: Keemun on June 04, 2008, 06:39:18 AM
I used to feel that way, but then I discovered how much better HIP Bach sounds (to my ears).
In what ways?
Quote from: Keemun on June 04, 2008, 06:39:18 AM
I voted "I care a lot", but really my caring decreases as the music become more recent. I care much more for the Baroque period than I do for the Romantic period, with the Classical period falling somewhere in between. In fact, while I've not heard HIP Bruckner, I suspect that I wouldn't care much for it.
Yeah, what he said.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 06:41:17 AM
In what ways?
In all the imaginable ways (for the music I mean) :D
Quote from: traverso on June 04, 2008, 06:44:40 AM
In all the imaginable ways (for the music I mean) :D
Answer better.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 06:46:37 AM
Answer better.
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.
Quote from: traverso on June 04, 2008, 06:48:27 AM
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 think knowing the instruments well enough affects my query at all. I've heard these older instruments and wonder why the strict preference? To me many of them sound weaker and flimsier than more modern instruments. For instance, I prefer the bolder, more dynamic and powerful sound of a modern piano to a harpsichord or fortepiano, though I listen to and can enjoy all three of these instruments. Just because Bach didn't know about the modern piano, why should we not play his music on it?
Or should I be wearing a powdered wig while listening to baroque music?
HIP could mean the work is played on period instruments or, it could mean it is played on modern instruments but played in a period style. So, even the terms means different things and in the latter case, what is period style for one ear is entirely different for another.
What are the alternatives?
Historically Misinformed Performances?
Historically Ambivalent Performances?
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 07:33:31 AM
I don't think knowing the instruments well enough affects my query at all. I've heard these older instruments and wonder why the strict preference? To me many of them sound weaker and flimsier than more modern instruments. For instance, I prefer the bolder, more dynamic and powerful sound of a modern piano to a harpsichord or fortepiano, though I listen to and can enjoy all three of these instruments. Just because Bach didn't know about the modern piano, why should we not play his music on it?
I don't think that "should" is a consideration here - whatever turns you on. I love Bach on modern piano, also on harpsichord, clavichord, fortepiano, tangent piano, etc.
As for what instrument is "best", I consider that an aesthetic issue and don't at all think that the modern piano is superior to the keyboard instruments during Bach's lifetime (for Bach's music).
Quote from: James on June 04, 2008, 07:41:46 AM
Instruments are just tools afterall, it's who's behind them that truly makes all the difference ultimately.
Exactly.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 06:29:12 AM
After all, wouldn't the composer want the music played on the best possible instrument?
What is the best possible instrument, and why??
Some have stated that these old instruments are preferred in the music of their era. So, I'm trying to get to the bottom of that. They sound "better" to strict HIPsters, but how so?
Quote from: premont on June 04, 2008, 07:51:48 AM
What is the best possible instrument, and why??
For what?
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 07:53:16 AM
Some have stated that these old instruments are preferred in the music of their era. So, I'm trying to get to the bottom of that. They sound "better" to strict HIPsters, but how so?
Their very lightness and lack of tonal depth makes a big difference. Even some modern-instrument enthusiasts complain occasionally about Mozart or Haydn being "too heavy" in modern-instrument recordings. Also the numeric balance of the ensembles in HIP recordings (even those played on modern instruments) ensures that you hear every voice clearly, not just the strings with a little woodwind color. (Full disclosure: I'm a woodwind player and a little partial to my own instruments. ;D)
And HIPness doesn't preclude boldness and passion. Listen to such groups as Ensemble 415, Europa Galante, and the Hanover Band for passionate HIP playing--almost Mahlerian in dynamics and tempo nuances. 8) HIP groups even seem to be bringing back the lost art of improvisation! :D
Quote from: jochanaan on June 04, 2008, 08:46:52 AM
Their very lightness and lack of tonal depth makes a big difference. Even some modern-instrument enthusiasts complain occasionally about Mozart or Haydn being "too heavy" in modern-instrument recordings. Also the numeric balance of the ensembles in HIP recordings (even those played on modern instruments) ensures that you hear every voice clearly, not just the strings with a little woodwind color. (Full disclosure: I'm a woodwind player and a little partial to my own instruments. ;D)
And HIPness doesn't preclude boldness and passion. Listen to such groups as Ensemble 415, Europa Galante, and the Hanover Band for passionate HIP playing--almost Mahlerian in dynamics and tempo nuances. 8) HIP groups even seem to be bringing back the lost art of improvisation! :D
Well done. Thanks.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 06:41:17 AM
In what ways?
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.
I'm going to suspend my vote until I see how Rod Corkin votes.
Quote from: Keemun on June 04, 2008, 08:51:09 AM
Let me know your thoughts on the differences.
I can't listen now. Will try later. Thanks.
Quote from: Dm on June 04, 2008, 08:52:50 AM
I'm going to suspend my vote until I see how Rod Corkin votes.
Who?
Quote from: Dm on June 04, 2008, 08:52:50 AM
I'm going to suspend my vote until I see how Rod Corkin votes.
What in the world for? ??? ;)
Quote from: James on June 04, 2008, 07:41:46 AM
... irregardless of arrangement or the age of the instruments, the main thing I like to hear is the music played with heartfelt energy & passion. Someone that really brings the music to life. Instruments are just tools afterall, it's who's behind them that truly makes all the difference ultimately.
I agree completely.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 07:53:16 AM
Some have stated that these old instruments are preferred in the music of their era. So, I'm trying to get to the bottom of that. They sound "better" to strict HIPsters, but how so?
They do not sound better per se, but they are better suited to the music, which was composed for these instruments.
Quote from: premont on June 04, 2008, 10:43:37 AM
Depend on, what you meant above.
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.
Quote from: premont on June 04, 2008, 10:49:04 AM
They do not sound better per se, but they are better suited to the music, which was composed for these instruments.
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.
Or would he complain after hearing his Goldbergs played on the piano because they were meant for the harpsichord?
He'd probably want to compose new music for the new instrument.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 10:55:13 AM
He'd probably want to compose new music for the new instrument.
Oh, sure. But that is not the same thing as using it to play the music he
did not compose for it.
Q
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 10:51:07 AM
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.
Different sound does not equal
better sound.
Much effort went into more volume and longer sustainability - all fueled by the fact that bigger spaces were used to perform in. Does that make it
better?
Q
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 11:26:46 AM
Oh, sure. But that is not the same thing as using it to play the music he did not compose for it.
Q
Did he write for a specific instrument though? Or just any keyboard?
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 11:27:35 AM
- all fueled by the fact that bigger spaces were used to perform in.
Oh, that's the only reason?
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 11:29:44 AM
Did he write for a specific instrument though? Or just any keyboard?
As far I know: clavichord and different types of harpsichords (harpsichord, lute-harpsicord, pedal-harpsichord)
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 11:30:39 AM
Oh, that's the only reason?
Why else would you need more volume? To harass the neighbours? ;D
Q
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 11:33:47 AM
As far I know: clavichord and different types of harpsichords (harpsichord, lute-harpsicord, pedal-harpsichord)
Q
Next month Naxos is releasing two discs of Bach's music for lute-harpsichord.
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 11:35:33 AM
Next month Naxos is releasing two discs of Bach's music for lute-harpsichord.
Why didn't they just call it a lute-sichord? And what the heck is it? Or do I want to know?
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 11:35:33 AM
Next month Naxos is releasing two discs of Bach's music for lute-harpsichord.
Thanks, Brian! :) Who's playing?
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 11:36:40 AM
Why didn't they just call it a lute-sichord? And what the heck is it? Or do I want to know?
Well, it's called a "Lautenwerck" in German, so you can blame the British for the term "lute-harpsicord"... 8)
What is it? See
here (http://www.baroquemusic.org/barluthp.html) or
here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautenwerck)
Do you want to know? Well, you sure don't sound like it. But Bach liked the instrument, and now let's assume for just a second that he was a very musical man... ::)
Q
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 11:54:10 AM
But Bach liked the instrument, and now let's assume for just a second that he was a very musical man.
Well, he was forced to use what was at hand. :P
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 11:54:10 AM
Thanks, Brian! :) Who's playing?
Elizabeth Farr. Should be great :)
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 12:06:29 PM
Elizabeth Farr. Should be great :)
Keep us posted, Brian. I might get 'em.
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 12:06:29 PM
Elizabeth Farr. Should be great :)
Haven't heard her, yet. :)
Brian, don't miss out on these - the best Bach on
Lautenwerck I know.
(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/9651588.jpg) (http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/2193614.jpg)
Q
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 12:00:53 PM
Well, he was forced to use what was at hand. :P
I meant "liked" as in: "was very fond of". 8)
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.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 10:55:13 AM
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.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 10:55:13 AM
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.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 10:55:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 12:16:58 PM
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.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 10:51:07 AM
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.
Quote from: premont on June 04, 2008, 12:29:33 PM
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...
Quote from: premont on June 04, 2008, 12:34:17 PM
Long live evolution. Why do we not play everything on synthesizers.
They are not acoustic instruments.
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.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 12:35:13 PM
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.
Quote from: mn dave on June 04, 2008, 12:35:34 PM
They are not acoustic instruments.
Why should this make any difference to someone believing in the evolution.
Quote from: premont on June 04, 2008, 12:28:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 12:36:37 PM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Keemun on June 04, 2008, 08:51:09 AM
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?
Quote from: James on June 04, 2008, 04:11:51 PM
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.
Quote from: traverso on June 04, 2008, 06:48:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Chaszz on June 04, 2008, 05:42:54 PM
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.
Quote from: James on June 04, 2008, 02:04:16 PM
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. :D
Quote from: Chaszz on June 04, 2008, 05:42:54 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Keemun on June 04, 2008, 08:51:09 AM
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. ;D
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 07:30:09 PM
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. ;D
The Karajan is from 1974 and the Suzuki is from 2007, if that matters any.
Quote from: Keemun on June 04, 2008, 07:41:43 PM
The Karajan is from 1974 and the Suzuki is from 2007, if that matters any.
Oh, I meant performance, not sound. :)
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 12:36:37 PM
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... :o
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]
(http://www.haenssler-classic.de/fileadmin/mediafiles/scm_shopproduct/Bilder/gross/092109000.jpg)
Q
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.
Quote from: jochanaan on June 04, 2008, 05:32:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Chaszz on June 04, 2008, 05:42:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Que on June 04, 2008, 09:34:06 PM
and is not well recorded... :o
It might be well recorded - remember, the sample is very poor quality (something less than 50 kbps).
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2008, 07:30:09 PM
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 05, 2008, 04:27:48 AM
...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... :-\
Quote from: Sforzando on June 05, 2008, 04:27:48 AM
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. :-\
Quote from: jochanaan on June 05, 2008, 09:48:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 05, 2008, 04:27:48 AM
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 ...?
Quote from: Chaszz on June 04, 2008, 05:42:54 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Chaszz on June 05, 2008, 07:50:56 PM
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...
Quote from: Keemun on June 04, 2008, 07:18:32 PM
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....
Quote from: Chaszz on June 05, 2008, 08:13:45 PM
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]
;)
Quote from: Keemun on June 06, 2008, 06:50:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Chaszz on June 06, 2008, 09:34:03 PM
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.