The Historically Informed Performances (HIP) debate

[Scarpia]

For those who doubt the wisdom of Hume on this: how many people do you know who dislike HIP performances, but listen to them because they've been persuaded by the arguments of the evangelical HIPsters? How many do you know who have abandoned their HIP preferences because they've been persuaded that the grounds for attempting HIP practice are dubious?

How many people?  At least one.  Me! 

I own and occasionally listen to Bach's WTC and other works on harpsichord, even though the sound of the instrument is abhorrent to me.  Sometimes, I start out with the idea of finally enjoying a harpsichord performance, and after a short time, have to turn it off and find a piano version.  Other times I listen because I find it useful to know what Bach had in mind when he wrote certain passages.  Sometimes something just doesn't seem right on piano, and putting on the proper version, it is obvious that "yes, that's a harpsichord thing."  It is interesting to hear how different pianists struggle to make something written for the transparent tone of the harpsichord work on a piano.

But, for 95% of the HIP stuff I listen to, I listen because I like the sound of the old instruments, and feel that the performance is more successful when they are used.
 

[Elgarian]

How many people?  At least one.  Me! 

I own and occasionally listen to Bach's WTC and other works on harpsichord, even though the sound of the instrument is abhorrent to me.  Sometimes, I start out with the idea of finally enjoying a harpsichord performance, and after a short time, have to turn it off and find a piano version.  Other times I listen because I find it useful to know what Bach had in mind when he wrote certain passages.  Sometimes something just doesn't seem right on piano, and putting on the proper version, it is obvious that "yes, that's a harpsichord thing."  It is interesting to hear how different pianists struggle to make something written for the transparent tone of the harpsichord work on a piano.

Ah yes. I wasn't precise enough, was I? Those kind of experiments aren't really what I had in mind, though. (On the contrary, that sort of occasional listening against a prejudice is a significant part of the way we grow, musically, isn't it?) I was thinking more in terms of sustained and repeated listening, against personal preference, on the grounds of some supposed rational argument; of course you knew that anyway, but you were right to point up the imprecision of what I'd said.

[Elgarian]

It is one thing to say "I like Immerseel in Beethoven better than I like Furtwängler because Immerseel does this and Furt does that instead and it just doesn't work for me". That's comparative, but it is also rational. If instead you were to say "I like Immerseel because he uses authentic instruments and performing style while Furtwängler is totally contaminated by post-Romantic rot and layers of accretion...etc" without being able to demonstrate what such a thing is, or how it ruins your listening pleasure, then you are much better off to leave Furt out of it altogether!

I'm more than happy to vote for the spirit of this manifesto!

[DavidRoss]

How many people?  At least one.  Me! 

I own and occasionally listen to Bach's WTC and other works on harpsichord, even though the sound of the instrument is abhorrent to me.  Sometimes, I start out with the idea of finally enjoying a harpsichord performance, and after a short time, have to turn it off and find a piano version.  Other times I listen because I find it useful to know what Bach had in mind when he wrote certain passages.  Sometimes something just doesn't seem right on piano, and putting on the proper version, it is obvious that "yes, that's a harpsichord thing."  It is interesting to hear how different pianists struggle to make something written for the transparent tone of the harpsichord work on a piano.

But, for 95% of the HIP stuff I listen to, I listen because I like the sound of the old instruments, and feel that the performance is more successful when they are used.
 

When in my teens and early twenties, I liked the sound of the harpsichord.  That was before the historically informed performance practice movement got rolling. Today I do not like the sound of the harpsichord, regardless of whether it is a period or modern instrument and whether it is used to play a piece according to historically informed practice principles or not.

I have always liked the sound of gut strings on fiddles of all sizes. I also like the sound of steel strings. I love the playing of some HIPsters on gut, of some HIPsters on steel, and of some MLRPers regardless of string type and instrument provenance. (MLRPer = modern/late romantic performance style practicioners).

I cannot charitably imagine the mindset of someone who claims to love, say, Beethoven's music who would not enjoy hearing it performed with the instruments and in the style Beethoven probably imagined/expected AND ALSO with the "improved" instruments and performance style accretions of the past couple of centuries.

[Scarpia]

I can't tell you how many times I've read in the last 15 years that if Beethoven had heard a Steinway he would have never played one of them crappy pianofortes again. Or better yet "Beethoven was looking into the future and writing for the instruments that he knew would one day come into being". Yes, I have actually read that, and more than once. 

Yes, I also recall reading such things.  When you read such things, it is clear there is no point in even arguing (which is not to say that I don't enjoy Beethoven performed on modern piano).

But, I would say for Beethoven the argument for fortepiano is weaker than for Mozart and Haydn, since when Beethoven wrote the most important works for piano his hearing was almost completely gone.  It is not too far fetched to say he was writing for an idealized version of a fortepiano (which wouldn't necessarily be a modern piano). 

[Scarpia]

When in my teens and early twenties, I liked the sound of the harpsichord.  That was before the historically informed performance practice movement got rolling. Today I do not like the sound of the harpsichord, regardless of whether it is a period or modern instrument and whether it is used to play a piece according to historically informed practice principles or not.

Sometimes I wonder if it is recordings of harpsichord, rather than a harpsichord itself, which I don't like. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Actually, I suspect he is thinking of Backhaus/Bohm.  Backhaus met Brahms, and his playing was admired by the composer, and I don't see how you can beat those HIP bona fides. 

For what it's worth, I also thought of this thread when I saw this post elsewhere, and it struck me as revealing a condescension towards those who don't prefer HIP performances.

Ah, cool. Good to know I'm not losing my mind.

You might read that suggestion into it, but that was not my intention. There are plenty of performances on modern(ised) instruments that show Brahms how I personally perceive him.


Broad, Romantic, pompous....I guess the choice of words depends on your taste.  "Anti-Brahms" is also a choice of words, wordings I wouldn't make mine.

But it is not the performance that shows these pieces how I perceive them. What's new about that in picking favourite performances?

Q

Okay, Q.

[Mandryka]

I especially liked this pearl of wisdom. HIP is a quintessentially (post)modern concept, I quite agree with that.

Q

That seems wrong to me, at least the reference to postmodernism. If you meant it seriously can you say some more about what you mean?

[Que]

Ah, cool. Good to know I'm not losing my mind.



Okay, Q.

Now the dust has settled, I understand the confusion... I do have a longstanding issue with the way Brahms is often perceived and interpreted, but that issue is not connected to HIP or non-HIP. Because it came up when discussing a HIP recording, it may have seemed the two where for me connected.

I do appreciate your olive branch! 

Yet, the incident gave me also food for thought. What if someone feels period performances generally do reveal a composer's "true" nature - to him/her of course, in the end it always comes down to personal experience.
So, in general, for that person it would be period performances that reveal the "true Bach", "true Vivaldi", "true Händel","true Haydn" or "true Mozart".

This might actually not be a very uncommon personal experience....

Would expressing such a preference be considered an act of condescension? When reading the statement below, it made me curious what it is actually about (and what not).

[...] I love HIP but I see MI dumping all the time on this board. It's not so overt which avoids wholesale toes from being stepped on but still it exists. The residual effect is to create an air of superiority, and since the whole thing is so subtle to call anyone out on it is to invite cries of pedantry.

Subtle or not it's still distasteful for me to read so I honestly have no sympathy for HIPsters who try to cry foul.

Q

[Elgarian]

When in my teens and early twenties, I liked the sound of the harpsichord.  That was before the historically informed performance practice movement got rolling. Today I do not like the sound of the harpsichord, regardless of whether it is a period or modern instrument and whether it is used to play a piece according to historically informed practice principles or not.

I've always assumed that many of my likes/dislikes with regard to the sound of particular instruments probably had a physiological explanation. For much of my life I could hardly bear the sound of a modern piano when played at the extremities of the keyboard (and couldn't cope with the harpsichord at all). It was relatively recently that I discovered how much I could enjoy the fortepiano, and so suddenly a whole range of music opened up to me. And now, a bit further down the line, I find I can enjoy the piano after all, and I'm wallowing in Chopin for the first time in my life. I don't think any of this had much to do with changes in my musical sensibilities, but mostly arose from the physical ageing of my hearing.

[DavidRoss]

Sometimes I wonder if it is recordings of harpsichord, rather than a harpsichord itself, which I don't like. 

I've not heard one in person for quite some time, but if I did (when I do?) I would attune myself psychologically to be in the most receptive frame of mind possible. I darned near bought a harpsichord recording a couple of years ago, of Haydn sonatas by Schornsheim, but couldn't quite bring myself to do it. Perhaps it's time to try again.

I've always assumed that many of my likes/dislikes with regard to the sound of particular instruments probably had a physiological explanation. For much of my life I could hardly bear the sound of a modern piano when played at the extremities of the keyboard (and couldn't cope with the harpsichord at all). It was relatively recently that I discovered how much I could enjoy the fortepiano, and so suddenly a whole range of music opened up to me. And now, a bit further down the line, I find I can enjoy the piano after all, and I'm wallowing in Chopin for the first time in my life. I don't think any of this had much to do with changes in my musical sensibilities, but mostly arose from the physical ageing of my hearing.

In recent years aging has crippled my high frequency hearing, which now drops off steeply above 12kHz. Too much very loud rock'n'roll in my misspent youth?

[DavidRoss]

I recently came across an interview with one of my favorite violinists, Isabelle Faust. A portion is quoted below for those interested in a thoughtful contemporary performer's take on the topic of this thread:

PP: I've been a big fan of yours for a long time, and have always thought of you, like some other notable players of this generation, for instance, Thomas Zehetmair or Peter Wispelwey, as a musician who is not grouped into a stylistic category. You are an artist who have a keen historical sense, not just of 18th century music, but also 19th century performance practice, and also contemporary music. Do you have any comment about how you approach music from different periods, how it affects your ideas about interpretation?

IF: Well, I try to study as much information as I can possibly find on music of earlier centuries. I collaborate quite often with a number of period ensembles. I also play regularly on gut strings. I play with Frans Bruggen and his orchestra quite a lot at the moment, as well as with Andreas Steier (talking now about the so-called "early" music). I'm very keen on getting as close to the original sources as possible, absorbing whatever information I can find (and there's a huge amount of information out there, of course), and then integrate it into my own personal vision of the music that I play.

Of course, it has been incredibly exciting, and still is, to play with people who are so-called experts in the field of historical performance, in order to get, sometimes, a completely different view of pieces which I play a lot with "normal" orchestras. When I play the Beethoven concerto or the Schumann concerto with Frans Bruggen on gut strings, it is always incredibly enriching, because I immediately perceive a totally different way of approaching music that I have played for so many years, music which I thought I knew very well.

This is very refreshing to me and, of course, always creates a lot of new questions for which I am keen to find answers, which can be difficult. Difficult, because you can ask one so-called expert about something and he gives you an answer, and then the next one will give you the contrary answer! There is so much insecurity, even among the specialists, that in the end it is always the best, I find, to decide what solution is the closest to my personal feelings about a particular piece, about a particular passage. In the end, it is always going to be up to the individual to choose the right answer for themselves. 

I think that this process of inquiry is absolutely necessary and that we live in a fantastic world for accomplishing this kind of work. With the internet, we have an enormous opportunity to look into manuscripts which have been digitalized. It has become so much easier to do this kind of research and maybe become more aware of certain things. This is absolutely a big, big, part of my work.

With my Bach recording, if in the end I decided not to record on gut strings but only use a baroque bow, then of course it seems much less baroque-inspired then really putting on gut strings and doing it in a clearly historically-performed way, but it doesn't mean that I didn't go back to those sources. I also have a baroque violin at home, and I prepared for this CD on that violin.

In the end, though, I am a violinist who lives and works now, not in Bach's time. I play this repertoire for the public of today. We have all, of course, grown up with music which Bach never heard, living in a different world with different knowledge, and this has to be mirrored in the interpretation of Bach's music. I absolutely think it is a very natural thing to involve the personal experiences of our times. Still, I am absolutely keen to put as much energy into looking into all the sources possible.

A huge amount of work also went into studying the manuscripts when we recorded the Beethoven sonatas, and I spent a lot of time in libraries studying the Schumann violin concerto manuscripts. It is extremely exciting to discover what kind of character the composer wanted, even from observing his handwriting, and also how different editors would interpret, maybe wrongly, maybe rightly, the handwriting of a certain composer. This is only one little aspect of the work, but it's really highly important, I think. And then, in the end, what one does with this information is a very individual and personal thing.

I am also extremely thankful for my colleague, Zehetmair, whom you just mentioned, because he's one of the few colleagues who takes these things extremely seriously. He always proposes a totally new way of looking at well-known and often-played pieces, and in the process inspires you to do the same, to ask yourself, over and over, the same, or even new questions about the so-called main repertoire pieces. Otherwise, they become routine, and this is the worst thing that could happen. They should always be very fresh, and I think one should never be too sure about how to interpret these pieces and what the composer actually meant, otherwise one stops asking all these questions.

From: http://violalotus.tumblr.com/post/10982692732/isabelle-faust-the-complete-interview

[Elgarian]

In recent years aging has crippled my high frequency hearing, which now drops off steeply above 12kHz. Too much very loud rock'n'roll in my misspent youth?

Just normal aging will reduce our sensitivity to high frequencies though, Dave, no matter what we did in our youth. My hearing change is more than that - a significant reduction in sensitivity in the midrange in one ear but less so in the other. It doesn't matter too much in practice, but you might be unwise to ask me to balance your stereo system for you. For this defect, I pretend to blame Bob Dylan in Birmingham in 2003, so for me it was my misspent middle age!

[DavidRoss]

Just normal aging will reduce our sensitivity to high frequencies though, Dave, no matter what we did in our youth. My hearing change is more than that - a significant reduction in sensitivity in the midrange in one ear but less so in the other. It doesn't matter too much in practice, but you might be unwise to ask me to balance your stereo system for you. For this defect, I pretend to blame Bob Dylan in Birmingham in 2003, so for me it was my misspent middle age!

Tinnitus is fun, too, and whatever is going on that causes me to awaken some mornings with almost no hearing in one ear. After thousand$ spent on pretty darned good high fidelity record playback gear, my decaying hearing is reaching the point where I can scarcely distinguish between CDs on the big system and mp3s on the PC rig!

Still, harpsichords have yet to sound like angels' voices, so my hearing's not completely shot -- yet!

[Scarpia]

For this defect, I pretend to blame Bob Dylan in Birmingham in 2003, so for me it was my misspent middle age!

Made the mistake of attending a performance of the Kinks in the 80's.  Not sure if there is any direct correlation with my current state of hearing, but definitely wasn't worth it.   

[Elgarian]

Tinnitus is fun, too, and whatever is going on that causes me to awaken some mornings with almost no hearing in one ear. After thousand$ spent on pretty darned good high fidelity record playback gear, my decaying hearing is reaching the point where I can scarcely distinguish between CDs on the big system and mp3s on the PC rig!

Still, harpsichords have yet to sound like angels' voices, so my hearing's not completely shot -- yet!

Sorry Dave, didn't quite catch that. Could you say it again, louder please?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Now the dust has settled, I understand the confusion... I do have a longstanding issue with the way Brahms is often perceived and interpreted, but that issue is not connected to HIP or non-HIP. Because it came up when discussing a HIP recording, it may have seemed the two where for me connected.

I do appreciate your olive branch! 

Yet, the incident gave me also food for thought. What if someone feels period performances generally do reveal a composer's "true" nature - to him/her of course, in the end it always comes down to personal experience.
So, in general, for that person it would be period performances that reveal the "true Bach", "true Vivaldi", "true Händel","true Haydn" or "true Mozart".

This might actually not be a very uncommon personal experience....

It's common enough an occurrence that it happened to me. Before HIP both Bach and Handel were blind spots in my musical appreciation. I have HIP to thank for changing that.   

Unfortunately, however, what HIP giveth HIP also taketh away. With fresh zeal to uncover what else HIP had to offer I found myself disillusioned with HIP's Mozart (but not before spending a fair amount of $$ ). Ditto Beethoven...and beyond.

Not that Mozart or Beethoven were blind spots for me previously, and a case might be made that I had preconceived ideas already entrenched about how Mozart and Beethoven should sound, and so HIP was merely toying with what I already considered "correct". But honestly I don't think that's the case. 

Which leads me to this:

Would expressing such a preference be considered an act of condescension? When reading the statement below, it made me curious what it is actually about (and what not).

Well, like I said before, I think that can be too easy a come-back. "Personal preference" isn't exactly the same thing as "true composer X". Turning convention on its head can produce gold, as HIP did with baroque, but HIP didn't make its case in a vacuum. It had to take its case to the public and hope for interest to grow. Eventually interest did grow. And what was once considered innovation in baroque then became the new convention. The public had spoken and baroque had a new image, thanks to HIP.

Not stopping there HIP built on its successes and spread outward to many other corners of the classical world. But here I don't feel it's been anywhere near as successful at winning converts. Which means prevailing convention is still entrenched. HIP has yet to convincingly construct a "true/new/whatever we want to call it" Mozart/Berlioz/etc... like it did for baroque. There will always be practitioners/followers of the new trends and that's all good and well but tinkering with certain composers just for the sake change isn't always an upgrade.

Not that I don't appreciate anything HIP attempts. But at this point if convention has yet to be overturned in post-baroque I'm not sure it ever will be.

Anyway, awaiting the scorching that's just around the corner...

[milk]

Listening to Leonard Lopate's interview with Paul Elie, about Elie's new book "Reinventing Bach" (the Leonard Lopate show on New York public radio), I was struck by the fact that HIP hasn't made a dent in their world. They did mention Wanda Landowska, but not as more than a novelty or musical anomaly. I thought at least Leonhardt's name would come up, but it didn't.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2012/oct/09/reinventing-bach/

I enjoyed the topic and I like the show but I wonder if this kind of conversation wouldn't be entirely different on a Dutch or German radio show. Anyway, HIP may have conquered baroque in some quarters but it wasn't relavent in this discussion of Bach in New York City. There was a discussion of period ensembles (specifically The American Classical Orchestra) a while back on this same show. But the guest, perhaps Vladimir Feltsman, talked about how hard it was to have a harpsichord made (I think he said he was waiting for one to be finished)  - and described the instrument as obscure and a curiosity.

[Mandryka]

Listening to Leonard Lopate's interview with Paul Elie, about Elie's new book "Reinventing Bach" (the Leonard Lopate show on New York public radio), I was struck by the fact that HIP hasn't made a dent in their world. They did mention Wanda Landowska, but not as more than a novelty or musical anomaly. I thought at least Leonhardt's name would come up, but it didn't.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2012/oct/09/reinventing-bach/

I enjoyed the topic and I like the show but I wonder if this kind of conversation wouldn't be entirely different on a Dutch or German radio show. Anyway, HIP may have conquered baroque in some quarters but it wasn't relavent in this discussion of Bach in New York City. There was a discussion of period ensembles (specifically The American Classical Orchestra) a while back on this same show. But the guest, perhaps Vladimir Feltsman, talked about how hard it was to have a harpsichord made (I think he said he was waiting for one to be finished)  - and described the instrument as obscure and a curiosity.

Oh but they do discuss period instruments -- Paul Ellie is quick to point out the importance of playing the music on  baroque organs, and he has a view on the appropriateness of fortepianos for Bach. I thought his view about harpsichord for the modern audience --to do with modern expectations that audiences have for variety of colour -- was not uninteresting. It's interesting how reticent he is about the modern piano.


I also felt all the stuff about Schweitzer was interesting , about how Schweitzer's recordings provide a link to a very early performance tradition, something which Ellie seems to think is important.

The most enigmatic thing he says is right near the start, when he seems to be committing to some  version of historicism --"To get a hold of Bach you need to get a hold of who he was." But the sentence is quite obscure. Still I wouldn't mind seeing the book, I thought he came across well.

Thanks for posting this -- I enjoyed the interview.

[Scarpia]

Now the dust has settled, I understand the confusion... I do have a longstanding issue with the way Brahms is often perceived and interpreted, but that issue is not connected to HIP or non-HIP. Because it came up when discussing a HIP recording, it may have seemed the two where for me connected.

I do appreciate your olive branch! 

Yet, the incident gave me also food for thought. What if someone feels period performances generally do reveal a composer's "true" nature - to him/her of course, in the end it always comes down to personal experience.
So, in general, for that person it would be period performances that reveal the "true Bach", "true Vivaldi", "true Händel","true Haydn" or "true Mozart".

For what it's worth, my preference for Brahms performances is very close to what you expressed.  I prefer performances which emphasize the lyrical in Brahms rather than the monumental or dramatic.  (Oddly, I have never enjoyed Mackerras's set of recordings which overtly takes an HIP approach, my favorite is the Barbirolli cycle, which takes a generally gentle approach to the music.)  What raised red flags was the formulation, implying regard those who don't share your view have failed to discover the True Brahms.