Richard Taruskin, musicologist, 1945-2022

[Brian]

Of cancer:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/arts/music/richard-taruskin-dead.html

Taruskin made an outsized impact for a classical musicologist because of his knowledge, writing skill, and willingness to get into all kinds of fights. He forcefully argued in favor of non-Germanic musical traditions, disputed the Volkov "Testimony" about Shostakovich's secret political messages, argued that HIP music reflects our tastes now more than it does the tastes of the 1700s, and was passionate about music's connections to politics and contemporary events.

To me, his basic thesis - that music and composers cannot be separated from their time or place, and that art doesn't exist in some kind of ahistorical, apolitical museum wing - is quite obviously true. Although of course it disrupts the traditional romantic notion of composers being inspired by unknowable genius/divinity and writing music of timeless appeal.

[DavidW]

Thank you for sharing this Brian.

[DizzyD]

argued that HIP music reflects our tastes now more than it does the tastes of the 1700s,

And I think he was on target there.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Of cancer:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/arts/music/richard-taruskin-dead.html

Taruskin made an outsized impact for a classical musicologist

He was also a performer of early music. I have him on a couple of LPs, performing Ockeghem and Josquin.

To me, his basic thesis - that music and composers cannot be separated from their time or place, and that art doesn't exist in some kind of ahistorical, apolitical museum wing - is quite obviously true.

I agree. But one thing I've noticed, is that for some reason a number of people have been strongly against him (including on this forum), and I can't quite figure out why. Any explanations?

[Florestan]

What a sad news. He was my favorite musicologist and I agree with pretty much everything he stood for. May God rest him in peace.

[prémont]

.. argued that HIP music reflects our tastes now more than it does the tastes of the 1700s...

I agree. But one thing I've noticed, is that for some reason a number of people have been strongly against him (including on this forum), and I can't quite figure out why. Any explanations?

It is not the thought itself that is provocative, but the way he presented it as being particularly original. HIP tries to rediscover the performance practices of earlier times, and it can to a certain extent be done, but of course not completely. Therefore we have to add the missing parts ourselves, and of course our own taste will be involved in this process. Nothing ingenious in this thought.

[DizzyD]

It is not the thought itself that is provocative, but the way he presented it as being particularly original. HIP tries to rediscover the performance practices of earlier times, and it can to a certain extent be done, but of course not completely. Therefore we have to add the missing parts ourselves, and of course our own taste will be involved in this process. Nothing ingenious in this thought.

The question is to what extent it can be and with what degree of certainty. I think Taruskin's thesis is that HIP is more 20th century Modernism than anything else.

[prémont]

The question is to what extent it can be and with what degree of certainty. I think Taruskin's thesis is that HIP is more 20th century Modernism than anything else.

This may have been true of the neobaroque proto-HIP philosophy of the 1960s, but since then, intensive studies of historical instruments, manuscripts, and musical treatises have meant that HIP is on somewhat safer ground. But of course, there is still a lot that is missing. But it can be said that recent times have made Taruskin's postulate relatively outdated (it was probably devised in the 1960s).

[DizzyD]

This may have been true of the neobaroque proto-HIP philosophy of the 1960s, but since then, intensive studies of historical instruments, manuscripts, and musical treatises have meant that HIP is on somewhat safer ground. But of course, there is still a lot that is missing. But it can be said that recent times have made Taruskin's postulate relatively outdated (it was probably devised in the 1960s).

Maybe. My whole problem with HIP is the idea that this is the only way to play Baroque music. It's just another approach, one based less on aesthetics than a supposed "authenticity" which really doesn't exist. I believe it became dominant not because of an inherent aesthetic superiority but rather the thought that "this is how Bach would've wanted it". We don't know. But that's a topic for another thread.

[Madiel]

Oh dear. Sorry to hear.

I have his 6-volume history of western music. I have not read it from cover to cover, only certain sections. Now I better commit to the whole thing...

[Madiel]

This may have been true of the neobaroque proto-HIP philosophy of the 1960s, but since then, intensive studies of historical instruments, manuscripts, and musical treatises have meant that HIP is on somewhat safer ground. But of course, there is still a lot that is missing. But it can be said that recent times have made Taruskin's postulate relatively outdated (it was probably devised in the 1960s).

Hoo boy, there's a particular Hurwitz video you should watch about this...

[prémont]

Maybe. My whole problem with HIP is the idea that this is the only way to play Baroque music. It's just another approach, one based less on aesthetics than a supposed "authenticity" which really doesn't exist. I believe it became dominant not because of an inherent aesthetic superiority but rather the thought that "this is how Bach would've wanted it". We don't know. But that's a topic for another thread.

You express the usual misconceptions regarding HIP. No one - at least in recent times - has claimed that "this is how Bach would've wanted it", because we do not know for sure precisely what he wanted, so the authenticity will never become more than partial. This uncertainty is even evident from the many different HIP interpretations we have witnessed over the years. One can say that the uncertainty is kind of authentic, because the interpretatory freedom seems to have been great in Bach's time, possibly even greater than today.

[prémont]

Hoo boy, there's a particular Hurwitz video you should watch about this...

To get a cheap laugh - or what?

[DizzyD]

You express the usual misconceptions regarding HIP. No one - at least in recent times - has claimed that "this is how Bach would've wanted it", because we do not know for sure precisely what he wanted, so the authenticity will never become more than partial. This uncertainty is even evident from the many different HIP interpretations we have witnessed over the years. One can say that the uncertainty is kind of authentic, because the interpretatory freedom seems to have been great in Bach's time, possibly even greater than today.

So then what's the point?

[prémont]

So then what's the point?

The point is of course, that HIP is a valuable approach to historical music in the same way as we use historical methodes in other sciences, and that Taruskin's "ingenious" claim was self-evident and has become outdated since.

[DizzyD]

The point is of course, that HIP is a valuable approach to historical music in the same way as we use historical methodes in other sciences, and that Taruskin's "ingenious" claim was self-evident and has become outdated since.

OK this is a tangent, but valuable how? We can't even be sure about pitch or the amount of vibrato used by string players and singers of that time, but yet a=415 and pretty much vibrato-less playing and singing have become dogma. About as far as you can go is to use instruments from that time or built to the specifications from then.

[Karl Henning]

I've always admired Taruskin, and we none of us get it right all the time.

[DizzyD]

I've always admired Taruskin, and we none of us get it right all the time.

That's true, and to clarify things I'm not anti-HIP. It's produced a lot of great performances and honestly I'd rather hear Bach on a harpsichord (and I think Couperin's, Rameau's and Handel's keyboard music demands it).

[DavidW]

Taruskin did enjoy many period style musicians like Harnoncourt, Bruggen and Gardiner.  Someone mentioned Hurwitz.  One of Hurwitz's favorite Beethoven PS sets is Brautigam on fortepiano!  If you dislike period style performances just for trying, you can't use Taruskin and Hurwitz for your appeal to authority fallacy, because they frankly took a more nuanced view than you do.  They evaluated the individual performers, and were not as dismissive as some think.

[Karl Henning]

That's true, and to clarify things I'm not anti-HIP. It's produced a lot of great performances and honestly I'd rather hear Bach on a harpsichord (and I think Couperin's, Rameau's and Handel's keyboard music demands it).

I didn't take you as anti-HIP. Tangentially, I've probably only heard the Handel keyboard suites on piano