HIP Debate Chapter 85,000

[Herman]

Musicians are told that to justify making a new recording they have to do something different. Rather than do something correctly.

In my experience this has never ever happened. No one is telling musicians to do funny stuff in order to "justify" a  new recording. Perhaps you're a Hurwitzian and believe in his cynical conspiracy theories?

Apart from flashy piano soloists, musicians are mostly busy trying to represent the music as the composer intended. The perception of what the composer intended happens to change over time. This is something some listeners cannot deal with as for a lot of listeners the composer intended it as on the first recording they bought.

[Madiel]

In my experience this has never ever happened. No one is telling musicians to do funny stuff in order to "justify" a  new recording.

Quoting something I said over a year ago. Okay, interesting.

So wait, you don't think any record company executives and marketing people have ever inserted themselves into recording decisions? The musicians just go ahead and play the music, and the record company dutifully publishes whatever they decide to record? No, that isn't how it works. The record company has to agree to publish the recording, and the record company is likely to do that with an eye to saleability.

The fact is, many recordings are marketed for their novelty. I would agree that some of those novelties are in the form of a new understanding of what the composer intended. But some of them simply aren't. Because we get a stream of arrangements for instruments the composer most certainly never intended, and other really obvious gimmicks. As best as I can recall what I was thinking over a year ago, I would bet that is a large part of what I had in mind because I've had it in mind for many years.

But there are also very real and very complex questions about whether or not new understandings are actually better understandings. It depends on what they're based on.

You also added the caveat "apart from flashy piano soloists", but the caveat isn't justified. Flashy piano soloists make recordings. Flashy piano soloists SELL recordings, rather well. And nowhere did I say I was talking specifically about piano music anyway.

[Madiel]

PS What is a "Hurwitzian", anyway? Is this part of the falsehood that he automatically hates PI recordings?

Because he doesn't. What he sometimes rails against is people who automatically like them. Only people who insist on dividing the world into opposing tribes don't see the difference between those positions.

[Brian]

I don't think much of that is what Herman meant. My interpretation of what Herman meant is as follows: most PI musicians perform in a good-faith attempt to be historically informed rather than a willful desire to "be different". However, many of the performances are very different in sound due to scholastic controversies over how the music originally sounded. There are so many variables involved, and the reality of historical performance practice is so unknowable without a time machine, that naturally many different approaches will arise.

My own view of the record industry, in particular, is somewhat more cynical than either of yours. I don't think most labels even have marketing teams anymore in the traditional sense. We've reached a stage where many many labels take recordings that the artists or their backers have already self-funded and basically act as a distributor. Or, they issue live recordings where the technical setup was provided by the ensemble or a radio station. Or, the labels are owned directly by the artists. The conventional model, where the record label employs one or two producers who work full-time with artists to determine and record their projects, is not very common (though most of them are our very favorites: Alpha, Chandos, BIS come to mind).

[DavidW]

David Hurwitz has opined that there are still great recordings being made, they're not all in the past.  He has railed against conductors needlessly recording the same cycles over and over.  But I don't think that he cynically thinks that recordings these days are just novelty gimmicks.

[Mandryka]

I don't think much of that is what Herman meant. My interpretation of what Herman meant is as follows: most PI musicians perform in a good-faith attempt to be historically informed rather than a willful desire to "be different". However, many of the performances are very different in sound due to scholastic controversies over how the music originally sounded. There are so many variables involved, and the reality of historical performance practice is so unknowable without a time machine, that naturally many different approaches will arise.

I actually think you're in danger of overstating what is not understood about historical performance practice. Just playing Mozart with, for example, an 18th century bow, can reveal all sorts of natural phrasing obscured by a modern bow - or at least that was the claim that David Faber from the Dudok Quartet made when he was in London a couple of weeks ago. And somewhere above I posted a link here to the historical work on bowing done by Ensemble Fratres. This is just two examples off the top of my head from Mozart - I could give others for more recent composers like Brahms. When you go further back, it's maybe harder - but not impossible to make judgements confidently.

Rather I think it's been ignored by some ensembles, because they don't see it as relevant to their purposes. They see themselves as part of a tradition which has its roots in ideas which postdate the composer - that's particularly clear where their instrument has changed - violin, keyboard etc.

[San Antone]

I actually think you're in danger of overstating what is not understood about historical performance practice. Just playing Mozart with, for example, a 17th century bow, can reveal all sorts of natural phrasing obscured by a modern bow - or at least that was the claim that David Faber from the Dudok Quartet made when he was in London a couple of weeks ago. And somewhere above I posted a link here to the historical work on bowing done by Ensemble Fratres. This is just two examples off the top of my head from Mozart - I could give others for more recent composers like Brahms. When you go further back, it's maybe harder - but not impossible to make judgements confidently.

Rather I think it's been ignored by some ensembles, because they don't see it as relevant to their purposes. They see themselves as part of a tradition which has its roots in ideas which postdate the composer - that's particularly clear where the instrument has changed - violin, keyboard etc.

This is why I think it is more useful to talk about "period instrument" rather than "historically informed" performances, or recordings.  There are some specifics of performance practice which we do know going back to Bach at least, and some about earlier periods concerning choir size and style of singing related to transparency or enunciating a text.

[Madiel]

I am reminded again of how Shostakovich complained about an instrument of his day and hoped that somebody would eventually invent a better one.

And when Beethoven got a keyboard with more notes on it, he started using those notes.

It is not ideas that necessarily post date a composer. It is technology. Understand the difference. There is a basic logical problem in not considering why people ever invented new technology (and on that point I am indeed Hurwitzian).

Mind you, nor do I think it is inevitable that later is better. But I do think there's a problem with favouring authenticity without considering whether what's being returned to is what the composer had to put up with and accept, rather than what the composer genuinely wanted.

The same of course goes for the standard of playing (with known instances of musicians not being up to the task of performing a new composition - actually that still happens in recent times, Carl Vine string quartet no.3), but nobody suggests it would be more authentic to return to hashing the performance because that's what happened at the time. Hmm.

[Mandryka]

This is why I think it is more useful to talk about "period instrument" rather than "historically informed" performances, or recordings. 

Well yes. On the other hand there's more to it than instruments. There's also writings. I know it's in French, but maybe you can read what Ensemble Fratres say about their work on the Viotti violin school and its implications for performing Mozart's scores.

https://static.qobuz.com/goodies/78/000133587.pdf

[Karl Henning]

But I do think there's a problem with favouring authenticity without considering whether what's being returned to is what the composer had to put up with and accept, rather than what the composer genuinely wanted.

Very good.

[Spotted Horses]

I am reminded again of how Shostakovich complained about an instrument of his day and hoped that somebody would eventually invent a better one.

And when Beethoven got a keyboard with more notes on it, he started using those notes.

It is not ideas that necessarily post date a composer. It is technology. Understand the difference. There is a basic logical problem in not considering why people ever invented new technology (and on that point I am indeed Hurwitzian).

Mind you, nor do I think it is inevitable that later is better. But I do think there's a problem with favouring authenticity without considering whether what's being returned to is what the composer had to put up with and accept, rather than what the composer genuinely wanted.

The same of course goes for the standard of playing (with known instances of musicians not being up to the task of performing a new composition - actually that still happens in recent times, Carl Vine string quartet no.3), but nobody suggests it would be more authentic to return to hashing the performance because that's what happened at the time. Hmm.

My preference for PI performance has nothing to do with authenticity, or what the music should sound like. It is based on the fact that it often sounds better to me. I think, to some extent, the old instruments teach performers how the music should be played.

Many composers of the past would be enchanted by the possibilities of modern instruments and ensembles. They would have written different music for those instruments. Generally they wrote music to take advantage of the specific resources at their disposal. I think that using the instruments they wrote for has the best chance of revealing what they had in mind. Speaking for myself, if I admire a composer, I feel I owe it to myself to at least be aware of how the music sounded on the ensemble that the composer write for. That said, I am eclectic in my musical taste and enjoy performances in "authentic," contemporary or "old fashioned" performance styles.

[Madiel]

I am similarly eclectic. Where I particularly appreciate PI performances is with an instrumental ensemble, because the balance between instruments can make a lot more sense (one of the Brandenburg concertos always stands out to me as an example).

[San Antone]

My preference for PI performance has nothing to do with authenticity, or what the music should sound like. It is based on the fact that it often sounds better to me. I think, to some extent, the old instruments teach performers how the music should be played.

Many composers of the past would be enchanted by the possibilities of modern instruments and ensembles. They would have written different music for those instruments. Generally they wrote music to take advantage of the specific resources at their disposal. I think that using the instruments they wrote for has the best chance of revealing what they had in mind. Speaking for myself, if I admire a composer, I feel I owe it to myself to at least be aware of how the music sounded on the ensemble that the composer write for. That said, I am eclectic in my musical taste and enjoy performances in "authentic," contemporary or "old fashioned" performance styles.

Precisely.

Often during a debate on PI/HIP some people appear to think it ought to be obvious that the music sounds better on modern instruments, so of course Bach, or Haydn, or Mozart, would prefer their music played on the Steinway concert grand.

For me the opposite is true: their music sounds better on a period keyboard.

[Florestan]

Speaking for myself, if I admire a composer, I feel I owe it to myself to at least be aware of how the music sounded on the ensemble that the composer write for.

Well, most ensembles during the Classical Era were under-rehearsed and semi-professional. Just saying.

[Madiel]

Precisely.

Often during a debate on PI/HIP some people appear to think it ought to be obvious that the music sounds better on modern instruments, so of course Bach, or Haydn, or Mozart, would prefer their music played on the Steinway concert grand.

For me the opposite is true: their music sounds better on a period keyboard.

I rather think the point of some of the discussion was that you're just making the opposite error. What sounds better is what is played well. It doesn't sound better on a period keyboard if the performer lacks the ability to make it sound musical. And that includes having the skills to overcome the limitations of the instrument.

[prémont]

Well, most ensembles during the Classical Era were under-rehearsed and semi-professional. Just saying.

The fact that you play historical instruments does not obligate you to refrain from rehearsing the music properly from a technical point of view. And when do you begin to understand that HIP is not about replicating past performance practice exactly, which is also impossible for obvious reasons.

[Madiel]

And when do you begin to understand that HIP is not about replicating past performance practice exactly, which is also impossible for obvious reasons.

I think the problem is that some people don't recognise it's impossible, and don't fully engage with asking what the point is.

Anyway, all decent musical performance has to be historically informed. It's necessary to understand basic things about musical styles of different periods and how notation changed over time, no matter how "modern" a performance is, in order to get something that sounds any good.

But equally, being "historically informed" and playing historical instruments doesn't excuse performers who make something that doesn't sound any good. Not for me, anyway. When people excessively prioritise an "authentic" sound to the point where it excuses downright ugly playing (which does happen), it rather reminds me of the days when I listened to Christian pop/rock music. I definitely encountered people who would embrace any music to their theological liking no matter how rubbish the music was as music. I have fond memories of my Bible study group voting to destroy a CD of Christian "music" that was horrible...

Anyway. Moving on.

[prémont]

I think the problem is that some people don't recognise it's impossible, and don't fully engage with asking what the point is.

Anyway, all decent musical performance has to be historically informed. It's necessary to understand basic things about musical styles of different periods and how notation changed over time, no matter how "modern" a performance is, in order to get something that sounds any good.

But equally, being "historically informed" and playing historical instruments doesn't excuse performers who make something that doesn't sound any good. Not for me, anyway. When people excessively prioritise an "authentic" sound to the point where it excuses downright ugly playing (which does happen), it rather reminds me of the days when I listened to Christian pop/rock music. I definitely encountered people who would embrace any music to their theological liking no matter how rubbish the music was as music. I have fond memories of my Bible study group voting to destroy a CD of Christian "music" that was horrible...

Anyway. Moving on.

We are 150% in agreement here.

[Spotted Horses]

I think the problem is that some people don't recognise it's impossible, and don't fully engage with asking what the point is.

Anyway, all decent musical performance has to be historically informed. It's necessary to understand basic things about musical styles of different periods and how notation changed over time, no matter how "modern" a performance is, in order to get something that sounds any good.

But equally, being "historically informed" and playing historical instruments doesn't excuse performers who make something that doesn't sound any good. Not for me, anyway. When people excessively prioritise an "authentic" sound to the point where it excuses downright ugly playing (which does happen), it rather reminds me of the days when I listened to Christian pop/rock music. I definitely encountered people who would embrace any music to their theological liking no matter how rubbish the music was as music. I have fond memories of my Bible study group voting to destroy a CD of Christian "music" that was horrible...

Anyway. Moving on.

I can't think of an example of this. For instance, I tend to think of the Trevor Pinnock recordings of baroque and classical orchestral music as having an excessively strict "sewing machine" articulation and I might be tempted to make such a comment, but then I come across people who love those recordings.

[prémont]

I can't think of an example of this. For instance, I tend to think of the Trevor Pinnock recordings of baroque and classical orchestral music as having an excessively strict "sewing machine" articulation and I might be tempted to make such a comment, but then I come across people who love those recordings.

Madiel may think of some players who don't master the period instruments well and had been better off with modern instruments.

Also - even on period instruments - there are recordings which are hectic and "scratching" in an annoying way, examples being Amandine Beyer's Bach violin concertos and Musica Florea's Brandenburg concertos.