|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.214.238.65
In Reply to: RE: I could not agree more with him posted by Analog Scott on April 14, 2021 at 17:48:17
/
Follow Ups:
Why do you think the quality of musical instruments has progressed over the years and centuries? Because everyone has been completely satisfied with them to begin with? You don't think today's composers and musicians think all musical instruments as they are are perfect without room for improvement?
Besides, what they knew or did not know has really no relevance to my assertion that the modern piano is simply a superior instrument to any forte piano by every measure. And I am QUITE confident that if they had the choice all of those composers saddled with forte pianos would have chosen to have their music played on modern pianos. I don't know for sure but I think their works are evidence enough of good taste and good judgement.
From what I understand, the steel-framed, louder pianos arose from the need to project sound into larger venues. Of course, steel-framed instruments have a much different sound quality, as well. Since we CAN listen to old instruments such as harpsichords and fortepianos, by choice, either in small venues or on recordings, doesn't this allow us to simply enjoy their unique sound characteristics? Sure, they must be in-tune, high quality instruments (either original or modern facsimiles...and well recorded), but they can sound GREAT...and, the main point, DIFFERENT than newer instruments. While I have read that Beethoven wanted more from the keyboard instruments of his time, Beethoven's actual compositions show little compromise, and can be enjoyed on all kinds. I have a few recordings of Bach's Goldberg Variations played on a harp (!) and, honestly, there is much pleasure to be derived by these alien transcriptions. The rest is politics and, to me, the OP/Reviewer was buried in that state of thinking.
That's an awfully nice way of putting it! ;-)
What Beethoven actually SAID was, "the piano [i.e., the pianos of his time!] is and remains an inadequate instrument" - and this was not long before he died. This was a point made by the reviewer in the link in my OP. And in fact, that review, far from being buried in "politics", is well argued and well thought out, with substantial evidence (such as that Beethoven quote) brought to bear for the opinions expressed therein. Below, you say he doesn't know how to think. And yet your own criticisms of the review are mere complaints that his view of things doesn't line up with your own. All that shows is that you're a proponent of "right thinking" (i.e., thinking which reflects your own predispositions) only.
My view of things is that this fetish for listening to "original instruments" and vibratoless (or practically vibratoless) string playing is a kind of perverse enjoyment occasioned by the ennui resulting from not having listened very closely to modern-instrument performances (or, as I like to call them, "adequate-instrument performances"!), so that, with the subtleties of the performances being glossed over in the listening, they all begin to sound the same after awhile. And then these types of listeners NEED the gross differences heard in HIP performances to discern any difference at all! But that's just MY view, resulting from my "intuition and feelings" - LOL!
BTW, have any of you HIP fetishizers here actually heard the album that was under review (i.e., Faust, Melnikov et al do in the Beethoven Triple Concerto and the Ries arrangement of the Second Symphony for piano trio)?
As for the development of the modern piano it was simply a result of competing manufacturers trying to make a better product. And they did. "Since we CAN listen to old instruments such as harpsichords and fortepianos, by choice, either in small venues or on recordings, doesn't this allow us to simply enjoy their unique sound characteristics?" Sure. As Chris has mentioned we can do the same with grade school orchestras. We certainly are free to enjoy whatever we want. But this is not simply about that. If someone enjoys listening to music on inferior instruments as some sort of novelty experience that's fine. But the argument runs towards what is "correct." IMO better is simply better which makes it more correct if we are going to deem something as correct. I have no problem with parents enjoying the scriblings of their young children and haning it on the refridgerator, where it belongs. I enjoy seeing antique forte pianos in museums. But in concert halls they simply suck.
.
. . . in the linked review of the OP. Basically, it's clear from Beethoven's own statements/writings that he wasn't happy with the keyboard instruments of his time. And yet, that's what the HIPsters want to do: saddle Beethoven with performances on the very instruments he hated!
and ever- evolving culture down to a few simple..."terms" that poll well with Grampy. :)
Would that an actual discussion about Bach and Monteverdi generate as much interest!
and it just keeps getting worse. It took my recently kindled interest in taking a deep and serious look at Baroque compositions to have me realize just how much has been lost and, in all probability, will never be regained in terms of the pure discovery and high intellect at work in the foundations of classical music. And, that is without us even getting into the part that a genuine and abiding religious faith could play for many of the great composers of the past (I am sure THAT conversation would become a major mess in our current times).
The politics of classical music, instrumentation, performance practices, etc. is one of the dumbest topics I know of. Evidently, some highly intelligent people can get caught up in it.
Are you sure you have a sufficient grasp of HIP's entire universe? It doesn't seem so.
I've listened critically to maybe 80-100 HIP recordings in the last couple of decades, from Machaut to Vaughan Williams.
Some of it I've liked, some I haven't. Some have been interesting duds, some have been boring duds. Some approaches seem clearly misguided, other approaches have saved composers (like Vivaldi) from the dust bin imho. Some instruments I like, some I don't.
I've also collected multiple performances of individual works, such as the Marais Gamba suites, Handel's Fireworks, the Brandenburg's etc. I've just begun to plumb the depths.
Where are you at in this journey? Or does it matter?
My collection of and experience with HIP represents probably less than 1% of what's available so I'm just not yet ready to call the culture police and enact a ban, burn the books, etc.
. . . cancel culture and pointing out the absurdities and historical blunders of the HIP movement.Strange, but I suspect that I've listened to at least as many HIP recordings as you have. Maybe I got an earlier start! ;-)
As for knowing the "HIP Universe", I wouldn't know whether I'm better versed on HIPdom than you are. One thing I do suspect however is that I'm better versed on the original sources which supposedly underlie the HIP movement. I still have in my library such works as CPE Bach's Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments , Daniel Gottlob Turk's Klavierschule oder Anweisung zum Klavierspielen fur Lehrer und Lernende mit kritischen Anmerkungen , Quantz's Versuch einer Anweisung die Flote traversiere zu spielen , and others. I'm thinking that that's what drives you and other HIP nut-cases crazy: not only do I abhor certain aspects of HIP, but I hate it intelligently, with a knowledge of the very sources with which HIP academicians and performers justify their perversities.
Furthermore, you've been trying to frame this as all-or-nothing, black/white thinking on my part, but in fact I've carefully selected the aspects of HIP which I object to AND I've provided the historical evidence as to why I object. You can't stand the fact that this disagreement can't be reduced to a question of simple likes and dislikes, and you lack the knowledge yourself to argue from actual evidence.
[Edited to restore the post after the umlauts in the original post crashed our server. They're now left out.]
Edits: 04/16/21 04/17/21
: )So...which aspects do you not object to?
I've simply tried to point out that those aspects,(or rules) supported or unsupported by research, are often adjusted or ignored in the real world, (of HIP). Imho you seem to assume they're followed to a "T" across the spectrum. That's where I believe the Absolutism comes in.
Forgive the edits. I'm poking away at my phone and allowing myself to be distracted while listen to Stravinsky on modern instruments. : )
Edits: 04/16/21 04/16/21
. . . reduced orchestral and choral forces as appropriate (unless it's that one-singer-to-a-part choral singing crap that we sometimes encounter), hard tympani sticks, generally brisk tempos. (Although HIPsters would have us believe that they discovered fast metronome markings! They have to realize that not all modern instrument performances* go at speeds like those which Giulini, Sanderling and Celibidache employed in their later years!)
*i.e., adequate instrument performances! ;-)
.
.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: