Harpsichords and Navel Gazing

[Spotted Horses]

This is the performance which made me see that Beethoven's very physical piano music - some bagatelles for example, or even some of op 106 - could well be fun to try on a suitable harpsichord.

Sure, why not, if it works. I think that "should" does not work in the context. The farthest I would go is to say that if you admire a composer you owe it to yourself to at least expose yourself to performances which are "as the composer intended."

[Florestan]

I doubt that you know. But I may be biased.

Everybody is biased, one way or another. 

All instruments suffer from bad sound reproduction, but the harpsichord is particularly vulnerable. It is maybe the most difficult instrument to record and there are lots of badly recorded harpsichord CDs.

This is perhaps because AFAIK, and please correct me if I'm wrong, most harpsichords in use are not original but restored instruments and the very fact of restoration altered their sound, and those harpsichords that have survived untouched have not aged well.

Of course. This wasn't my point, but the fact that fair judgement of the sound of an instrument demands fair sound reproduction. The best would be to hear the instruments live.

Live, okay --- but in what environment? Surely not in a concert hall, not even a small one. Consider: music written specifically for harpsichord was originally played in rather small rooms or drawing-rooms, heavily decorated with paintings, upholstery and curtains, with an audience who was far from being reverently silent and who, moreover, had never heard any music more modern than that. Surely all these factors must have affected how the sound of the harpsichord was perceived. 

Yes, but these problems are not relevant in a music forum.

Even in a music forum, whether Rameau's suites are played on a grand piano or on a harpsichord is pretty irrelevant, except for people like me and you who apparently have no better things to do than to discuss the topic. 

[Florestan]

if you admire a composer you owe it to yourself to at least expose yourself to performances which are "as the composer intended."

Which is pretty much unknowable in the case of long-since dead composers --- or might result in big surprises.

To stick with Beethoven, he is reported as reprimanding Schupanzigh, after the latter complained that a certain passage in a SQ that I can't remember otomh was unplayable on the violin, by something to the effect of "What do I care about your damned wretched violin, when the Spirit itself leads me!" How did he intend that SQ to sound, then?

The self-same Beethoven reportedly instructed the pianist who was to premier the Hammerklavier Sonata that he (the pianist) was at liberty to play as many movements of the four as he deemed right. What would you say about a pianist today playing only the first, third and fourth movement of Op. 106, does he play it as Beethoven intended or not?

Then let's take Mozart and his Paris Symphony: he intended the audience to applaud during a movement, which was common practice back then anyway, but he calculated the exact moment when it should happen, and got it right. Well, if a connoisseur today would applaud at that precise moment, he'd be hushed by the rest of the audience and they would behave completely contrary to Mozart's intentions.

There's more: Rachmaninoff, Debussy and Prokofiev have all made recordings, and all departed significantly from their own scores. What was their true intention, then: what they wrote, or what they played?

"Playing the music as the composer intended" mostly results in paradoxes and conundrums. I say, let performers play the music as they feel it should be played, according to their personality, knowledge and taste. If one likes the result, one can (and probably will) certainly label it "as the composer intended"; if one doesn't like the result, one can (and probably will) certainly label it "not as the composer intended" --- both cases being much more about the personality, knowledge and taste of the listener than about that wild goose called "a long-since dead composer's intention".

My two cents --- and my last ones --- anyway.

[Madiel]

Shostakovich complained that the trumpet wasn't up to one of his works and hoped that one day someone would invent a better trumpet.

What the composer intended is not guaranteed to be what the composer ever heard. And this was my original point. Going back to an instrument that was around at the time could well mean going back to an instrument with deficiencies that annoyed the hell out of people.

See also: Carl Vine, who thought one of his string quartets was a failure, because the original performers couldn't pull it off. He had tears in his eyes when he heard someone else do what he imagined.

[Florestan]

Shostakovich complained that the trumpet wasn't up to one of his works and hoped that one day someone would invent a better trumpet.

What the composer intended is not guaranteed to be what the composer ever heard. And this was my original point. Going back to an instrument that was around at the time could well mean going back to an instrument with deficiencies that annoyed the hell out of people.

See also: Carl Vine, who thought one of his string quartets was a failure, because the original performers couldn't pull it off. He had tears in his eyes when he heard someone else do what he imagined.

Busoni astutely remarked that the score itself is already a transcription of what the composer imagined, and it may be more or less accurate but never perfect.

As for PI, the biggest problem (which is no problem at all, actually, but I lack a better term) is, imo, that how we hear music is not only a matter of instruments, acoustics and ear physiology, it's also culturally and socially conditioned, and since culturally and socially we differ, often dramatically, from, say, Bach and his audiences, we will never ever be able to hear his music like they heard it, no matter how perfect a harpsichord is played or recorded. To give you a more striking example: I defy even the most fanatical HIPster-cum-Beethovenian to sincerely claim that by listening to his favorite performance of the Eroica he experience the same shock and awe that the original audience experienced at the premiere.

[prémont]

Busoni astutely remarked that the score itself is already a transcription of what the composer imagined, and it may be more or less accurate but never perfect.

This may often be true but not always. Busoni can't but talk for himself.

As for PI, the biggest problem (which is no problem at all, actually, but I lack a better term) is, imo, that how we hear music is not only a matter of instruments, acoustics and ear physiology, it's also culturally and socially conditioned, and since culturally and socially we differ, often dramatically, from, say, Bach and his audiences, we will never ever be able to hear his music like they heard it, no matter how perfect a harpsichord is played or recorded. To give you a more striking example: I defy even the most fanatical HIPster-cum-Beethovenian to sincerely claim that by listening to his favorite performance of the Eroica he experience the same shock and awe that the original audience experienced at the premiere.

When I heard the Eroica for the first time as a very young teen (Klemperers first recording) my knowledge of  post-Beethoven music was so restricted that I experienced - do I think - something close to the shock the audience at the first performance got. Already the two introductory chords are shocking. I had a similar experience when I (still very young) heard Bartok's concerto for orchestra, Carl Nielsen's Espansiva and Stravinsky's Sacre for the first time.

[DavidW]

When I heard the Eroica for the first time as a very young teen (Klemperers first recording) my knowledge of  post-Beethoven music was so restricted that I experienced - do I think - something close to the shock the audience at the first performance got.

When I first heard the Appassionato, it sounded so strange and dissonant to my ears that I honestly struggled with it as much as I would later struggle with atonal music.

I think it is easy for us to forget how really non-challenging pop music is.  Coming from that you end up climbing the same hill that audiences of the past did.

[Madiel]

This may often be true but not always. Busoni can't but talk for himself.

No, this is always true. Many statements are subjective but this one is not, and throwing relativism into every conversation is a bad tactic.

A score is a communication tool for ideas, and it is never perfect. Never. It's simply not possible.

[Florestan]

A score is a communication tool for ideas, and it is never perfect. Never. It's simply not possible.

As witnessed by a plethora of composers who constantly kept tweaking their scores, sometimes decades after the original version. Liszt, Bruckner, Brahms, Sibelius and Rachmaninoff imediately come to mind.

[prémont]

No, this is always true. Many statements are subjective but this one is not, and throwing relativism into every conversation is a bad tactic.

A score is a communication tool for ideas, and it is never perfect. Never. It's simply not possible.

So you say that when any composer publishes a score it's never a definitive version of the work. How do you know this.

[Madiel]

So you say that when any composer publish a score it's never a definitive version of the work. How do you know this.

Definitive version is an entirely different concept. Is it the best version we have? Certainly. Is it perfect? No.

It doesn't record every tiny detail of musical conception because we don't have musical notation that does that. That's how I know.

If the score was perfect we would never have the variety of performances of works that we have. That's also how I know. The claim of perfection is logically incompatible with all the different ways that musicians read the same score.

Edit: you can arguably have something perfect with recorded music because you are using sound rather than visual notation. So with pop music and singer songwriters there's a whole different dynamic.

[prémont]

Definitive version is an entirely different concept. Is it the best version we have? Certainly. Is it perfect? No.

If the score was perfect we would never have the variety of performances of works that we have. That's also how I know. The claim of perfection is logically incompatible with all the different ways that musicians read the same score.

When I write "definitive" I see the matter from the composer's point of view, if he thinks the score expresses his thoughts in the best possible way and has no intention of changing it afterwards. Regarding interpretations, however, we shall never experience the "definitive" version, but this is another question.

[MickeyBoy]

No, this is always true. Many statements are subjective but this one is not, and throwing relativism into every conversation is a bad tactic.

A score is a communication tool for ideas, and it is never perfect. Never. It's simply not possible.

Let's not forget that the composer's point of view or intention can change with the circumstances of a performance. He may rightly see that there are different ways to realize his music and be generally indifferent to a performer's choices, but specifically prefer one for a given performer or circumstance. I think we are too conditioned by recording technology to imagine that each performance should strive to capture for all time the essence of a piece. As for Beethoven's Fifth, read E. T. A. Hoffmann's contemporary review of the heaven-opening piece to see that no one in the 20c. could possibly have that kind of reaction.

[Florestan]

When I write "definitive" I see the matter from the composer's point of view,

With all due respect, this is a flagrant absurdity. You emphatically cannot do that because you are not the composer. Do you sincerey claim, and would us believe, that you know what Bach's point of view was in composing whatever work of his you may want to present as evidence for your outlandish claim?

No, really, this strikes me as one of the most absurd statements ever made on GMG --- and once again, I apologize for my harsh tone but I really can't help it.

if he thinks the score expresses his thoughts in the best possible way and has no intention of changing it afterwards.

And just how on earth do you know what he thinks? To stick with Bach, did he ever mention, verbally or in written form, that any of his scores "expresses his thoughts in the best possible way and has no intention of changing it afterwards"? Nay, do you know of one single composer in the whole history of music who did that?

Regarding interpretations, however, we shall never experience the "definitive" version, but this is another question.

it's not "another question", it's the crux of the matter. Music without interpretation simply does not exist, Werktreue and play-it-as-in-the-score fanaticism notwithstanding. There is no such thing as the Hammerklavier Sonata or the WTC unless somebody plays them. Music is not an object, as painting, sculpture, architecture or a printed novel are objects. Music is an action, a performance. All scores, even the most meticulously notated, are nothing more and nothing less than a recipe for a performance and can be performed in a myriad ways, all equally valid. Whoever thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.

Once again, I apologize for my harsh tone but I really could not help it. For God's sake, some 21st century bloke presuming to see the matter from Bach's point of view? Gimme a break! 

[Florestan]

As for Beethoven's Fifth, read E. T. A. Hoffmann's contemporary review of the heaven-opening piece to see that no one in the 20c. could possibly have that kind of reaction.

This, in spades.

[Spotted Horses]

Somehow the same debate springs up periodically on classical music discussion forum. Yes, the score can be the composers "definitive" expression of his or her idea, but no matter how precise the notation there are nuances of performance that there is no notation for. It brings to mind the piano music of Faure. I can listen to recordings on an individual Barcarolle by my favorite pianists (Stott, Collard, Hubeau) and the texture of the music is widely divergent, although I can't say any are failing to follow what's in the score.

[DavidW]

I might split this into another topic since it has been going on for pages without any sign of letting up. 

I'm just waiting for someone to say "hey man it's all subjective so let's play Bach's lute suites on electric guitar!"

[JBS]

I might split this into another topic since it has been going on for pages without any sign of letting up. 

I'm just waiting for someone to say "hey man it's all subjective so let's play Bach's lute suites on electric guitar!"

Given the starting point of this particular debate, it would be more appropriate to say "let's play Jimi Hendrix on a Renaissance lute!".

[Florestan]

I'm just waiting for someone to say "hey man it's all subjective so let's play Bach's lute suites on electric guitar!"

I think it's already been done. 

[Florestan]

"let's play Jimi Hendrix on a Renaissance lute!".

Well, yes, let's. Why not?