|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.80.146.114
In Reply to: RE: This is my brain on HIP posted by Jay Buridan on January 10, 2017 at 07:17:04
I have only seen a few headlines on HIP and know it is a current topic of heated debate. So, please educate me on why some people dislike HIP. Is it the instruments or the lack of vibrato or something else?
Follow Ups:
God knows I've had Hogwood's Handel biography on my bookshelf long enough (decades actually)! I'm about a third of the way through, and I'm enjoying it. I suppose if enough time goes by, I might even take up JEGie's biography of Bach too at some point. I take nothing away from these two pillars of HIP orthodoxy in terms of their knowledge and their writing. In terms of their actual performances though, it's "Get me outta here!". But why? What do I have against it?My own personal HIP history:
In the early days of HIP (maybe up to the early-60's, before the acronym was invented), I actually DIDN'T have too much against the movement. Its adherents tended to focus on correct execution of the ornaments, correct number of performing forces, details such as horn parts which were notated an octave lower than the expected sound (e.g., in Haydn's Symphony No. 48), etc. Nothing to get too worried about really, and in fact, I supported those aspects of performance which they emphasized at that time. However, in the 60's, some wacko recordings were released under the authenticist rubric, not least the c. 1966 recording of Handel's Royal Fireworks Music on Vox by Richard Schulze and his Telemann Society band, which contained demo tracks of the goals they were after in the performance and which, they claimed, would have been the sounds that Handel himself had in mind at the time he wrote his music. They went back to valveless brass instruments, thicker reeds on the oboes and bassoons. . . and they even included an instrument made out of leather called a "Cavalry Serpent". It was certainly ear opening - but not in a good sense. The natural unmodified tuning of these valveless brass instruments resulted in terrible pitch clashes with the other instruments, and, even aside from these gross pitch problems, the whole performance seemed to be hanging by a thread, although, truth to tell, the winds didn't sound that bad. I had this album and I loved it, mainly for its potential as a "party record"! I didn't see how anyone could ever take this nonsense seriously.
But I was wrong!
Just a few years after this freak of music recording, both DG and Teldec were going whole hog (no pun intended) with their English Concert (Trevor Pinnock) and Concentus Musicus (Nickolaus Harnoncourt) ensembles in standard Baroque repertoire works. I'll never forget the first time I happened to tune in on the radio and heard this godawful performance of the Fifth Brandenburg Concerto (Pinnock's), with its minimal to no vibrato in the string playing, clumsy-sounding over-articulated phrasing (with slurs exaggeratedly clipped off at the ends), and gross, amateurish messa di voce effects which made a joke out of any chord that was halfway sustained. And people were taking this seriously, because these Historically Informed Performance pioneers had the backing of an entire academic industry which was misreading and misinterpreting the contemporaneous music treatises of the Baroque period. It's as if all these academicians got together at some conference somewhere and decided that, for instance, vibrato was verboten in performances of music of the Baroque!
It only got worse from there.
Somehow, these feet of clay ensembles found enough of an audience (and, worse, enough kudos from bored and cynical critics who still should have known better) to allow them to sweep into the classic period. . . then the early romantic period. . . then the late nineteenth century (Bruckner, Mahler, etc.). . . then the first half of the twentieth century (Vaughan Williams - geez!). It was like a disease. It got so bad that some HIP maladies began to infect performances even on modern instruments (e.g., Paavo Jarvi's otherwise fine set of Beethoven Symphonies, with its minimalist vibrato in the strings). There was even a report that some musicologist in the 80's was seriously suggesting that performances of Boulez's "Le Marteau sans maitre" return "to the instruments of 1955" in order to realize the composer's intentions. (Somehow, when Boulez himself recorded the work for DG, he didn't take the musicologist's directive into account!) And although this last point sounds humorous, it does point up a very serious problem with HIP academicians and performers: their arrogance in deciding how the composer would have wanted his music played. Sorry to disappoint them, but, on evidence of this anecdote, they DON'T speak for the composer at all, even though they claim to. I see there's been some discussion on this thread about using the "original instruments" of the Beatles and other pop groups, plastic saxes, etc - the absurdity of this notion is plainly obvious in that discussion, but it's every bit as absurd when it comes to classical music too, except perhaps as experiments which, if successful, might lead us to tweak our own performances of older music too.
Speaking personally, my own hostility to post-60's HIP performances resides in the following:
I'm sure I'm forgetting some additional objections I have to HIP and HIPsters, but this is sufficient for now, and I've posted about a lot of this stuff before.
- The paring down of string vibrato to little or nothing, making for a completely unsophisticated, amateurish type of sound
- The use of keyboard instruments ("fortepianos" - note the special designation) which sound like toy pianos, or strung-together rubber bands. Listeners have been brainwashed into accepting this type of sound, partly because of academic intimidation. In a way, it's a kind of "Emperor's New Clothes" mentality.
- The overphrasing and clipping off of phrase endings in a way that earlier generations would have called "mannered" but which are now par for the course in HIP performances. Sometimes, this type of playing is appealing to newbie and unsophisticated listeners who, because of the gross differences with traditional renditions of the music, can actually hear these differences themselves (unlike the more subtle expressive approach of traditional players to the music).
- The arrogance which underlies HIP academics' and musicians' often unstated assumption that, unlike musicians who play modern instruments, only THEY know what the composer had in mind
- Another form of arrogance by which HIP musicians and academics claim that THEY were the ones who reinvigorated music by returning to the (often fast) tempos which earlier composers notated - as if traditional conductors like Toscanini, Reiner, Dorati, Szell, et al., didn't know a thing about the composer's markings. (Hint: the first conductor to take the second movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony at Beethoven's own metronome mark was not some HIPster - it was Dorati!) On this point, the HIPsters are nothing short of deceitful.
HIP - it's a bad scene!
Edits: 01/11/17
A friend is principal french horn in the orch. I've heard/seen them twice at the same venue (Ethical Culture Society in NYC) and they sounded great. Not only were the instrumental sounds not strident or wiry, they were rich. No pitch problems worth caring about either.Not a good move to damn all bands that play orig. instruments IMO.
Edits: 01/12/17
I haven't heard the American Classical Orchestra, so I can't complain about what I haven't heard. But there was indeed one HIP group which I didn't mind (kind of "the exception which proves the rule"): the Collegium Aureum, which I've posted about a few times. At least they didn't go along with the little-to-no vibrato directive received from on high in the academe! ;-)
nt
. . . certain groups play under a certain rubric, and, despite our best efforts, we eventually begin to listen with expectations and (perish the thought!) preconceptions. As Dubya used to say, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, and. . . uh. . . you can't be fooled again!". ;-)
Chris, Thank you for taking time to articulate your point and educating me. Much appreciated.
I rarely put any stock into a journalist or reviewers point of view. They can't hold water like a conductor or virtuoso.
I still go back to the original thought in my mind: "do we really KNOW what Bach or Beethoven intended?" The answer is "probably not".
We do know what Shostakovich intended for his quartets, as evidenced by the Beethoven String Quartet upon whom he relied to debut his quartets. In this case, one could easily defer to the Beethoven Quartet performances as reference. From the Shosty quartet web site: "Shostakovich himself enjoyed the companionship of the Beethoven Quartet, the foremost ensemble in the Soviet Union, for whom he wrote all but his first quartet. In telling the story of his life, his quartets tell also of his relationship with these players, with their instruments, and with their repertory of the great classics."
In contrast, we have no such authority from Bach or anybody else prior to the 1900s.
M
,
N
. . . interpretive differences in their own music were concerned. I've posted some stories about composers such as Martinu and Dvorak which indicate that they didn't have a single, fixed idea as to how their own music should go. To recap one of them: Dvorak actually conceived a tempo for the slow movement of the New World Symphony which was noticeably faster than the one taken by the first conductor in the rehearsals for the premiere of the work. When Dvorak's son-in-law, Josef Suk (the composer, not the violinist!) asked him if he was going to correct the conductor, Dvorak said no, because, on reflection, he thought that the conductor's slower tempo worked well too.
I liked Pinnock's Brandenburg's.
But Pinnock's "Ode to St Cecilia" with Felicity Lott? Out of my cold dead hands.
On a Barclay-Crocker open-reel tape. I do admit to liking certain things about it. Hard tympani sticks is one thing we can thank the HIP movement for! ;-)
.
. . . I've been meaning for years to get a more traditional recording of the Ode. There's one on Naxos which I can presumably check out on Classics Online - at least I think it's a traditional performance. My wife generally likes Handel, but she thinks that "The Trumpet's Loud Clangor Excites us to Arms" (my favorite part of the Ode) is lame - especially when it gets to "the double double double beat. . . " section. ;-)
.
Not only is the sound of period instruments inferior to modern instruments, they are in most cases much much more difficult to play and so they inhibit the performances.
I once heard a very interesting recording of Beethoven's Appassionata sonata played on forte-piano. The instrument's inability to handle the dynamics of the piece made it sound like it was about to explode, which was part of the emotional experience Beethoven was (arguably) trying to convey.
More generally, I admit to knowing very little about how to play a violin, but the way people play period strings seems to lead consistently to a lighter, defter approach to the music.
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
I just listened to this HIP performance on youtube.
Beethoven Appassionata Sonata - Shuann Chai - Fortepiano - Live Concert - HD
It certainly is different from a piano performance using a modern piano. I don't find it offensive and it is actually a bit intriguing. I guess if I donned a white wig and some ruffled shirt I could really get into the HIP scene :-)
It's might be considered a bit enlightening.
Pat
Well...if I am going to listen to a Beethoven sonata I am hoping for better than "I don't find it offensive." I find the forte piano to be a prime example of HIP leading to inferior music. It is simply an inferior instrument to a modern paino and never sounds as good. Heck Beethoven sonatas played on a kazoo, if played well enough, might be "interesting" but it will never rise above the level of novelty IMO.
nt.
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
So right you are, my friend.
And, I wear leopard skin underwear while listening to Rod Stewart.
nt
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
As I'm sure you can appreciate given your example, the fortepiano is a good illustration of why the "historical" approach is not without controversy. In the opinion of many, the modern piano is far better suited to the modern large concert hall, and at least in my opinion, it is also better suited to the recording studio. But it sure is interesting to hear Beethoven piano sonatas played on a fortepiano with leather hammers, isn't it? And there are some fine fortepiano players around today.
Beethoven himself was supposedly frustrated with the lack of power of the fortepiano and early pianos of his day, and I suspect would have been very happy with the modern piano had he lived to play them.
.
However welcome the improvements to 17th and 18th and early 19th instruments may have been, they did bring about a different sound, sometimes vastly different. And many of the changes were spurred by the need for louder instruments capable of enough volume to fill larger venues, rather than just better intonation, flexibility or ease of playing, though all those come into play too as you correctly point out.
I don't think any intelligent, open-minded musician or listener would reject modern instruments as a bad thing. But I also think that a well-done recreation of the original sound can be worthwhile and enjoyable to hear. Of course, the goal must always be musical worth first and historical authenticity a distant second. And I don't mean to imply more modern instruments or approaches must be replaced by something more "authentic". There's plenty of room for all sorts of approaches.
I totally agree with this sentiment. There are some truly exceptional performances on period instruments and they do offer a wonderfully different perspective and more of a sense of time travel. I would never exclude either approach. But, ultimately I prefer modern instruments plain by great musicians.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with the basic principle of considering the performance practices that were commonly observed in the era a piece of music was composed. Imagine someone centuries in the future trying to play a piece by Tommy Dorsey or Miles Davis without the instruments they used or any clue as to performance practices, or any recordings (just as we have no recordings of Couperin, Bach or Mozart played by the musicians of their own time). They would have to read contemporaneous books or magazine articles and do a lot of research and sleuthing in general to figure it out. in other words, become historically informed.
Where the HIP movement sometimes veers off track, imo and the opinion of others who have written on this topic, is when performance "rules" become too codified and rigid and there becomes a right and wrong way to deal with every last detail.
This is getting interesting. Let me offer a couple of thoughts:
1. I agree with idea that playing a piece of music with historical information sounds reasonable. But, and this will expose my ignorance, do we really have enough historical information to inform us on how the scores were intended to be played? Do we know for certain that vibrato was not used 300 years ago? Or is this supposition deducted by bits and pieces of information that are arguably wrong?
2. There is also nothing wrong with playing a piece that might slightly deviate from the historical fashion it was intended. This gives the performers and conductors a bit of artistic license which can add diversity to the music. Imagine if artistic license was forbidden, we would only need 1 sample of each score. No need to hear Beethoven from multiple conductors or symphonies. Just one, if we did not allow artistic license.
3. As I read some of the comments, there appears to be an issue with the sonic quality of the HIP performances. Is this due to recording engineering issues or the way the instruments are played or due to the historical instruments themselves?
Your point 2 is similar to the main point I was trying to make. IMO the best players of 17th and 18th century music well understand that knowledge of historic performance practices should be a helpful tool to enhance artistic license, not restrict it. In the end, the idea is to produce a convincing musical performance, not rigidly follow a series of rules down to the most minute detail.
As for your point 1, while historical knowledge of anything is seldom perfect, there are sources that provide information on how music was played in the 18th and even the 17th centuries.
I'm not sure how to respond to your point 3. There have been many "audiophile" releases of early music where authentic early instruments or replicas are used and early performance practices are followed in at least some regards. The instruments often produce less volume than more modern ones, and ensembles are often smaller.
I can give one good example of HIP gone wrong and off the deep end. Roger Norrington's Bruckner. Gawdawful, scratchy strings, sewing-machine rhythms, emmaciated sonority, total lack of spirituality. Just dreadful crap, all in deference to the "Historically Informed Performance" ideology. Bah, humbug.
John Proffitt
Didn't he do an equally bad Mahler 9th?
"What if that wand never belonged to Norrington? What if its allegiance was always to someone else?"
[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2]
.
Yes, pretty awful.
John Proffitt
tragic-comic examples of HIP become the exemplar. I remember when the poor natural brass players missed more notes than they hit. Strings can be screechy and thin in the worst cases, though insensitive recordings didn't help, etc.
There's plenty of diversity.
A terrifying thing to come home and discover in your living room!
nt
BTW, are you related to Baron Rump?
.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
.
....shades of The Wrath of Khan! Ugh.
John Proffitt
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: