|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.1.8.70
In Reply to: RE: Didn't mean to imply it was universal - Sorry! posted by jdaniel@jps.net on May 05, 2016 at 20:07:47
There you go. But the HIP approach also usually implies original instruments and intonation (much flatter in many but not all contexts than modern intonation), and those two things make a big difference. Especially in the baroque context, the HIP approach also involves study of contemporary sources for things like ornamentation and even improvisation. That's why the concept loses much of its meaning after the early 19th century.
It gets pretty tiresome when people (1) say HIP = no vibrato, which is simplistic and untrue, and (2) endlessly complain about performances with not enough vibrato, blaming the HIP movement.
The only rant that is more tiresome is the one that says modern music was foisted on an unwilling audience by tyrannical critics, and we need to go back to the romantic music that the audience really wants, except for the progressive ones, for whom we can change the name of romantic music to "neoromantic" music.
I've had more than enough of those two rants.
Follow Ups:
Roy - you should be happy! I just checked all the hi-rez recordings of Handel's Messiah, and the only non-HIP ones available (in hi-rez) were the Colin Davis LSO Live set and his old Philips set, also with the LSO (now on a blu-ray audio disc). You've won the battle! Nevertheless, I'll continue to question the historical basis for the HIP sackcloth and ashes approach to string vibrato until someone can convince me otherwise - and I just don't see that happening. Indeed, the arguments in favor of the musicologist-approved minimalist approach to vibrato are incredibly weak IMHO and are based on misleading and incomplete interpretations of the contemporary sources. In addition, I'll continue to question the way in which actual and would-be academicians fall into line on this issue - with some important exceptions like David Hurwitz. (Check out his piece in "Music and Letters", February 2012!)As for post-Webernesque music, I say I've paid my dues over the years (listening to it way more than it deserves - for instance, don't forget that I've somehow acquired four different recordings of Boulez' Second Piano Sonata over the years), and I think I've earned my right to make observations about it, both for myself and for its repulsive effect on the general audience, as well as for its intimidating effect on other composers (with the serialists prancing around for awhile as if their approach was the one true direction for music - nothing else was legitimate!) I do admit that there is a fragment of an audience which champions this music however. But OTOH, these post-Webernists have already had their 50 years - and more - to make their impact, and, thank goodness, music has moved on in a different direction.
Edits: 05/06/16
Fantastically orchestrated too.
And his etudes?
I've got Boulez' oh-so-charming 2nd Sonata too, (as well as his Please Begone Please), but there are certainly more interesting pieces than that floating around.
They've been turning up in the big piano competitions for quite some time now. I have the Aimard complete recording, supplemented by performances of selections by Yuja, Babajan, et al. I also have the scores to all but the last couple of of them. I haven't heard the Violin Concerto however. BTW, I don't consider Ligeti a post-Webernist by any means.
So maybe Roy is right: I should define my terms. By post-Webernist, I mean a composer (like Boulez for instance) who uses the 12-tone principles of the Second Vienna School and extends them not only to cover pitch (i.e., the row itself), but also articulation, dynamics, rhythm, speed, etc., so that large parts of the score can almost be said to be "pre-composed" even before the composer starts to notate the composition! Of course, Webern himself was already well on his way along this path, a good example being the second movement of his Variations, Op. 27. Oh, and one other requirement for a piece to qualify as part of the post-Webernist aesthetic: the resulting composition has to be REALLY ugly too - that's a requirement! ;-)
I'm a fan of the Ligeti piano etudes too. As for Webern, I had the opportunity to perform his Five Pieces for Orchestra in college and was struck by how much it evoked Mahler, except fragmented, as through a kaleidoscope. I think even a dedicated Webern connoisseur wouldn't want to be limited solely to his soundscape, and I would say the same about Mahler.But even using your definition, there was a whole lot more going on in the 20th century than that, as you know. One example I gave, George Crumb, was originally influenced by among others Webern (I was surprised to learn), but developed in a very different direction. And his students include Jennifer Higdon and Christopher Rouse, major American composers today. Also look at another 20th century composer influenced by the second Viennese school -- Leonard Bernstein. Again, a very different direction.
Edits: 05/08/16
Well, I need to listen again to George Crumb and try to see what influences are evident. Thanks.
And, yes, I know that Stravinsky wrote a couple of 12-tone works. But I think that when people talk about Stravinsky, those 12-tone pieces usually aren't what they mean.
At this point in time no sides need be taken really.
Composers can use the technique, strictly or loosely. Or not.
Yes, I often find it interesting to listen to music with period-characteristic ornaments and improvisation, played on original instruments at original pitch, for example in various forms of just temperment rather than equal temperment. As you well know, equal temperment is the unchallenged standard today despite having significant disparities from the "true" harmonic intervals. Invented in the early 18th century, it was considered an imperfect compromise that could and should be compensated for as late as the early 19th century. Then Western music got so harmonically complicated, and involved so much modulation, that equal temperment became the only practical choice. Now our ears hear anything but equal temperment as odd and foreign -- until they adjust.But a musical performance has to be convincing on its own terms, whatever those terms are. There is no right or wrong way, no rigid absolute rules, and no battle: only musical and unmusical. Yes, there are fashions in performance style that wax and wane, but that's secondary. Good is always in style, bad never is. The best performers, HIP or not, all understand that. Maybe it's time for you to abandon the battle and enjoy the music. ;-)
And as for the second issue, yes, music is moving in different directions. But music is always moving in different directions. We have not had 50 years of domination by "post-Webernists", whoever they are. Or anyone else. I mean, are Stockhausen and Crumb both post-Webernists? Varese and Poulenc? Boulez and Bernstein? That's a pretty broad spectrum to choose from. In fact, I would argue that a rigid imposed musical orthodoxy was a bigger issue in earlier centuries, when kings, aristocrats and the church controlled the musical show, and they usually didn't favor revolutionaries. True, in the 20th century Russia had to deal with Stalin for 25 years, but that's just Russia.
Edits: 05/06/16 05/06/16 05/06/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: