At what point do period instruments become no longer relevant?

[Que]

Obviously an anachronistic performance can be an improvement over an authentic one, it's not a priori that an authentic performance is better poetry than an inauthentic one.  I would say that for some of Mozart's and Beethoven's music, and maybe for a some romantic style music, many of the best performances are anachronistic, and hence inauthentic, just because some of the very greatest musicians have applied their minds to making performances on modern pianos or violins or with incorrectly formed orchestras and incorrect ideas about balance, rubato , tempo and phrasing. We haven't had a HIP Furtwangler or Cortot yet. JSB has done really well out of period performance, so has Haydn. I'm not sure why there's this assymetry.

A for Bach, I do appreciate non-HIP peformances but only the solo repertoire. The rest I find truly odd sounding (Brandenburgs) or down right off putting ("piano" concertos, violin sonatas with piano). Beethoven fares very well in the non-HIP - wake me up for some Furtwängler any time... Mozart...just the orchestral repertoire and the operas, the rest (chamber music, solo piano repertoire) generally sounds quite "off" IMO.
Haydn...I generally dislike any non-HIP performances of Haydn. It does sound like people had no clue what Haydn was about anymore... Though there are always exceptions - I would not turn down a reissue of the SQ by the Tatrai.....

Generally I think using authentic instruments and adopting period performance practices gives any performer a head start, although that does not turn them into great performers - that is still up to their own personal talents. Alternatively a great performer playing non-HIP will still be a great performer, no matter what. Either he/she overcomes the set back and still produces an "authentic" effect (Szell in Mozart) or achieves a magnificant personal "adaptation" (Gould's Bach would be a good example, as is Furtwängler's Beethoven).

I do not feel that generaly a non - authentic performance can be an inmprovement over any authentic performance, that it a priori could get more ("poetry") out of the music than any authentic performance would. That would contradict  the intrinsic nature of the music.Though I am sure there are many peolple that in case prefer a non-HIP "adaptation" over the original. Not for me, but sometimes on equal footing, yes.

Q

[Jo498]

With Bach for me it is not so much the instruments, except in obvious cases like the Brandenburgs with woodwinds where the colors and balances are all wrong with modern instruments (but the 3rd one even works in Carlos' electronic version), but that often the massive choirs can not properly articulate the music despite glacial tempi, often whole sections are cut etc. Despite all this the (mostly complete) St Matthew with Scherchen is a favorite of mine because it is so dramatically done.

The violin sonatas are "abstract" enough for me, so I can enjoy them with piano, although I probably prefer harpsichord. I prefer harpsichord in some keyboard music (like toccatas and fantasias with lots of embellishments and arpeggios), but others, e.g. WTC I also like (or even prefer) on modern piano.

With Haydn and Mozart, it is mostly case by case for me.

[jochanaan]

Ideally, in HIP/period instrument practice, one should not only try to recreate the actual sounds of the instruments, but also the thought patterns and performance practices of the times.  And although there is much written material documenting early performance practices (less from the Renaissance, even less from the Medieval period and almost nothing from ancient times), it still is hard to recreate the thought patterns that produced what we know.  Yet it is good to reexamine our way of playing every so often.  Just as the early teachings of Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed have suffered from additions and subtractions and emphasizing certain truths over others over the centuries, so with musical performance.

But it can take a genuinely scholarly musician, one who is skilled both in research and performing, to get at the truth--as much as we can.  Sergiu Celibidache said once, notoriously, "You can do false phrasing on gut strings too."  Perhaps he overstated the case, but his point is well taken, that it takes more than mere academic knowledge to get at the heart of a Bach or a Haydn and make others hear it too.

[Mandryka]

Ideally, in HIP/period instrument practice, one should not only try to recreate the actual sounds of the instruments, but also the thought patterns and performance practices of the times.  And although there is much written material documenting early performance practices (less from the Renaissance, even less from the Medieval period and almost nothing from ancient times), it still is hard to recreate the thought patterns that produced what we know.  Yet it is good to reexamine our way of playing every so often.  Just as the early teachings of Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed have suffered from additions and subtractions and emphasizing certain truths over others over the centuries, so with musical performance.

But it can take a genuinely scholarly musician, one who is skilled both in research and performing, to get at the truth--as much as we can.  Sergiu Celibidache said once, notoriously, "You can do false phrasing on gut strings too."  Perhaps he overstated the case, but his point is well taken, that it takes more than mere academic knowledge to get at the heart of a Bach or a Haydn and make others hear it too.

Is that because the scholarship leaves a lot of decisions to the performer's discretion?

I don't understand the point about Celibidache. Don't scholars have some ideas about true phrasing?

[Chris L.]

Thanks for all the interesting info and tid-bits on this topic. I've found I enjoy both modern and HIP versions of various composers works. I'm not a HIP only snob, although I do prefer most Baroque music on HIP and performance styles as has been practiced since the HIP revival of the late 70's.

What I dislike more then non-HIP to some extent are certain genres and styles of music that are not written by and/or performed by their native sons and daughters, such as British and Russian choral music and some French music. There are just certain types of music, vocal styles, accents, etc. that seem less then 100% authentic if performed by non-natives, not that it's necessarily bad, I'd just rather have the real deal.

[jochanaan]

Is that because the scholarship leaves a lot of decisions to the performer's discretion?

No matter how precisely the music is written, there are always differences in performances.  As Gustav Mahler said, "What is best in the music is not to be found in the notes."

I don't understand the point about Celibidache. Don't scholars have some ideas about true phrasing?

Celibidache was by no means an HIP or period-instrument performer, but he was a true musician and, I suspect, did know a few things about early music styles (although that was not his specialty; he was a thorough Romantic in his repertoire).  What he probably means by "false phrasing" is phrasing that just doesn't communicate with the audience--and that is not something that can be defined in words.