The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[jlaurson]

I listened to the youtube.  What was Distler doing?  Sounds like nothing more that syrupy new age jibberish; I really hate music like that.

Is he having a laugh? My gawd, how awful in every way. And to title it "After Beethoven"...

[starrynight]

All this debate recalls me a question formulated during a discussion on the Bach-cantatas site:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Articulation.htm

Modern informed performance I suppose.  All that matters to me is whether the musician conveys sympathy and understanding of the music they play whatever approach they choose, there can surely be more than one way to play a piece of music.

[Leon]

I listened to the youtube.  What was Distler doing?  Sounds like nothing more that syrupy new age jibberish; I really hate music like that.

Yes, he was at least historically accurate in that his piece was written after Beethoven.  Sounded like something that would accompany one of Stuart Smalley's daily affirmations:

http://www.youtube.com/v/NuGf34F0f5g

[mc ukrneal]

I disagree. I think the use of properly restored period instruments (or copies of them) is essential for Haydn. Their tone, palette of colors and warmness make a huge difference in terms of texture and balance. Obviously the HIP movement (being a reaction against the Romantic standardization) doesn't search for any kind of uniformity and that's the reason why the Festetics and the Mosaïques are quite different from the point of view of the interpretation (specially tempi and articulation): the Festetics being like a party at home and the Mosaïques as a sort of "symphonic" chamber music. Personally, I prefer the first approach.

I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.

[Antoine Marchand]

But the tone, palette of colors and warmness of the Apponyi is so different from the Festetics. And the tone of Festetics has I think something in common with the Tatrai (Hungarianness  )  That's why I say that the important questions are independent of HIP/non-HIP.

Do you think that certain balances are more likely with PI? That would be interesting -- but could you say more?

I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.

I have some ideas about this (I don't mean I have great ideas!  ), but right now I don't have time to elaborate. I hope to respond tonight.

[Marc]

I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.

Reinhard Goebel, former leader of Musica Antiqua Köln (period instruments), would probably agree with much of your statement.

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,981.msg402462.html#msg402462

But I'm also sure that a certain Gustav Leonhardt would NOT agree. As far as I understood from his interviews, IHO every music should be played with contemporary instruments.

[Mandryka]

But I'm also sure that a certain Gustav Leonhardt would NOT agree. As far as I understood from his interviews, IHO every music should be played with contemporary instruments.

Because? (I can sense big Platonic issues on the horizon  )

Interesting that he made those transcriptions of the Bach violin sonatas.

[Opus106]

Because? (I can sense big Platonic issues on the horizon  )

I vote platonic issues over album covers.

Interesting that he made those transcriptions of the Bach violin sonatas.

Something Bach would have likely done, don't you think?

[Gurn Blanston]

Something Bach would have likely done, don't you think?

Absolutely.

[Mandryka]

That reminds me of those people who say "he would have played on a Steinway if he'd had one"

[Opus106]

That reminds me of those people who say "he would have played on a Steinway if he'd had one"

Nah, I disagree. A modern concert grand came over a hundred years after he died. Now compare that to the likeliness of Bach, a composer for the harpsichord and a well-known transcriber of both his and others' music, modifying his compositions to a contemporary instrument. It's not the same fanciful thinking that some people use to justify banishing the harpsichord and forever playing Bach on the piano. He may not have published it, but you surely can imagine him and a colleague or a friend doing this during some free time on a Saturday afternoon.

[prémont]

Something Bach would have likely done, don't you think?

And which he actually is reported to have done.

[prémont]

That reminds me of those people who say "he would have played on a Steinway if he'd had one"

Yes, they may be wrong.

[prémont]

I must say that I disagree with this. I say this, because good playing and interpretation don't go away depending on the type of instrument. I agree entirely with the bolded sentence, except I don;t think the particular instrument that creates them is important. The 'their' in my case would be any instrument (or perfromance). Perhaps it lies with where I place the priority in the sound world, but this is why I suggested the OP that the choice of instruments is just one way to go. Personally, even as someone who prefers modern instrument versions, I would not immediately dismiss PI performances just because they are PI. I would be missing too many great performances. I think the reverse is true too.

The problem with modern instruments is, as I have written before, that modern instruments (which according to Bruce Haynes ought to be called romantic instruments) posess a different expressive potential from period instruments and invite performers to neglect stylistic issues. And the other way round performers who already neglect stylistic issues are prone to prefer modern instruments. If you prefer interpretations, which are as close to the original spirit of the music as possible, you will prefer period instruments equally whether you are a performer or a listener. I prefer period instruments, not for museal reasons, but because I want to understand the composers intentions as thoroughly as possible, and in this process the style of the interpretation is all important. If Bach is played like Chopin, details which were not intended by the composer will emerge and get to much attention.

[Mandryka]

The problem with modern instruments is, as I have written before, that modern instruments (which according to Bruce Haynes ought to be called romantic instruments) posess a different expressive potential from period instruments and invite performers to neglect stylistic issues. And the other way round performers who already neglect stylistic issues are prone to prefer modern instruments. If you prefer interpretations, which are as close to the original spirit of the music as possible, you will prefer period instruments equally whether you are a performer or a listener. I prefer period instruments, not for museal reasons, but because I want to understand the composers intentions as thoroughly as possible, and in this process the style of the interpretation is all important. If Bach is played like Chopin, details which were not intended by the composer will emerge and get to much attention.

The initial context of this discussion was Haydn quartets.

What I find interesting is the idea that the "expressive potential" of period string quartets is different from ones which use modern instruments. It may well be true, but it's not obvious to me. Take, for example, Festetics and Tatrai in Haydn Op 50. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

The point about inviting performers to neglect stylistic issues is not clear to me either. Which stylistic issues do you have in mind for a Haydn string quartet? I don't actually know enough about technique to understand how a certain type of bow, bridge and string "invite performers to neglect stylistic issues" -- can someone explain?

[mc ukrneal]

The problem with modern instruments is, as I have written before, that modern instruments (which according to Bruce Haynes ought to be called romantic instruments) posess a different expressive potential from period instruments

A lot to say, but to start, I don't really disagree with this.

and invite performers to neglect stylistic issues. And the other way round performers who already neglect stylistic issues are prone to prefer modern instruments.

Maybe modern instruments don't lend themselves to some stylistic decisions as well as period instruments, but it does not logically follow that modern insturment players are neglecting period style. There are numerous groups that play music on modern instruments, but within the HIP style and approach. I think Mandryka has addressed this better than I in his questions.

If you prefer interpretations, which are as close to the original spirit of the music as possible, you will prefer period instruments equally whether you are a performer or a listener.

Here is where I completely disagree. Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.  A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet). I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement. I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.

I prefer period instruments, not for museal reasons, but because I want to understand the composers intentions as thoroughly as possible, and in this process the style of the interpretation is all important. If Bach is played like Chopin, details which were not intended by the composer will emerge and get to much attention.

I don't think there is much disagreement here (perhaps just in nuances), though I think the music is flexible enough to handle different approaches. I would say though that there are two ways at looking at the intention of the composer - 1) What they wrote is what they meant (to add or change anything would ruin that) or 2) What is not written or said is open to the interpretation of the player(s). #1 is too strict for me. But #2 also leaves open numerous problematic areas. How does one know when one has strayed too far? And yet, both can be 100% in the spirit of the music. A conundrum of sorts...

[jlaurson]

Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.  A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet). I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement. I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.

I couldn't agree more with that. The HIP movement has opened a new (not old) means of interpretation that has greatly enriched our choices of hearing the works we love.
But as Taruskin points out (with perhaps a dash too much vigor) it says about our modern sensibilities than it could ever claim to say about how a performance was perceived at the time.
If someone feels that only HIP can get across the "Spirit of the Music" than that's more because of out contemporary expectations than about composer's intent viz. "spirit" and all.

Music, in short, needs to be awesome... and HIP is but one way to achieve that... and it has a unique set of justifications that aid it toward that end.

[Mandryka]

Here is where I completely disagree. Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.  A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet). I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement. I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.

I'm sympathetic to your conclusion, but I don't follow your argument.

In the bold bit you prioritise understanding the score. But what about the rest? -- the performance practices which the composer would have taken for granted when he wrote the score for example? Why is making music about performing what the composer had printed, rather than all the other things he would have expected?

And of course,  when Haydn writes Violin in a score he's intending a certain type of instrument, with a certain type of bow, stings and  bridge. In exactly the same way as he intends a certain note value when he writes a crotchet.  You seem to be prioritising some aspects of "understanding the score" over others.

Of course you can have very fun performances of (eg) AoF on saxophone -- performances which make your spine tingle and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. No one would argue with that. Lots of people really get off on The Swingle Singers. I love to hear the Goldbergs on guitar.  But it's a different point.

I think you're begging the interesting question, which is: is "getting close to the spirit of the music" an act of making a performance now in line with what the composer would have expected to hear then?

[prémont]

The initial context of this discussion was Haydn quartets.

Sure, but my comment aims at more general considerations.

What I find interesting is the idea that the "expressive potential" of period string quartets is different from ones which use modern instruments. It may well be true, but it's not obvious to me. Take, for example, Festetics and Tatrai in Haydn Op 50. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

From my point of view it is the other way round. Modern instruments have a different (and stylistically unwanted) potential of expression than period instruments, particularily concerning dynamics and touch. Add to this the nowadays generally accepted pitch and tuning for modern instruments, quite different from the situation some centuries ago.

The point about inviting performers to neglect stylistic issues is not clear to me either.

I do not say, that all performers succomb to the temptation, but many do. And the comparatively slow action of e.g. a modern piano makes it almost impossible to execute the delicate nuances of articulation on a piano which a harpsichord allows. This means that even  the HIP orientated performers have to compromise about articulation, and the "normal harpsichord touch" (=ordentliche Fortgehen = non legato) becomes either too much legato or a strange and cocmpletely inappropiate accented staccato. A good friend recently gave me Ivo Pogorelich´s (piano-) recording of Bach´s 2. and 3.  English suites, and he plays much of these (Preludes, Gavotte, Gigue) with an unvaried all to short and accented staccato. He is a good example of unlearned playing possible on a piano (succumbing to the above mentioned temptation) since he tends to suppress the polyphonic character of the music by stressing the upper part almost consequently - quite unmusical in these ears.

[prémont]

Maybe modern instruments don't lend themselves to some stylistic decisions as well as period instruments, but it does not logically follow that modern insturment players are neglecting period style. There are numerous groups that play music on modern instruments, but within the HIP style and approach.

See my answer to Mandryka above.

Here is where I completely disagree. Getting close to the spirit of the music has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with the players.   A magical saxophone quartet can get closer to the original spirit of Bach's Art of the Fugue than a period playing chamber group if they have a better understanding of the music that was laid out on paper (or substitute Modern insrument quartet playing a Haydn sting quartet as opposed to a PI quartet).

Here I disagree. The aestetics of the music is closely connected to its spirit. Anyone who has heard Lars Ulrik Mortensens recordings of Buxtehudes harpsichord music (Naxos) on a meantone tuned period harpsichord copy will know what I mean.

I wish we were in person to discuss this in depth to show I'm not angry or in violent disagreement.

I do not suspect anything like this.

I also think we have different views on the strictness of 'original spirit' which I sort of discuss below.

Yes, I am more strict than you. But it must be admitted that performers in earlier ages probably also had much liberty as to interpretation.

I don't think there is much disagreement here (perhaps just in nuances), though I think the music is flexible enough to handle different approaches. I would say though that there are two ways at looking at the intention of the composer - 1) What they wrote is what they meant (to add or change anything would ruin that) or 2) What is not written or said is open to the interpretation of the player(s). #1 is too strict for me. But #2 also leaves open numerous problematic areas. How does one know when one has strayed too far? And yet, both can be 100% in the spirit of the music. A conundrum of sorts...

If the known "rules" of the style in question are neglected, one has gone too far.