 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.229.155.40
In Reply to: Re: You Are Sorry posted by David Aiken on April 16, 2005 at 00:43:48:
hey severius,I still don't know about this whole "scientific" proof idea you're applying to performance - which because of its interpretive nature simply isn't bound by the rules of science.
Wanda Landowska, in her day, would have been described by many as an historically informed performer, and she probably felt her performance style was as accurate as possible to that in Bach's day...... but today does any of that matter? or do people simply treat Landowska's performances as her interpretation of things (which you can like/dislike, agree/disagree, listen to/don't listen to according to your own preference).
Whether Norrington is using any research or not to back-up his interpretations, when it comes down to it they're just his interpretations (of history, of a composition, of a description of how something was performed...)
Science? No. Art? Yes. An artistic interpretation that you hate? Seems so. But that's your right and you don't need science to prove why your dislike is justified...
Follow Ups:
All well meaning, on your part, Herb, but that's not what the HIPs are doing.Read any of Gentle Thornhill's posts.
It's not the performances that I'm questioning here. After all, when you listen to Norrington, et al, they really just sound like really bad Paray or grossly incompatent imitators of wannabee imitators of Toscanini.
But, I'm examining the so-called research underlying their godlike pronouncents. These people are presenting their ideas as concrete, historic fact.
To do that, you need to follow scientific procedure; otherwise, you're just doing VOODOO.
Ah, I see what you're up to now. Yes, that's very bothersome and I agree that if they're going to treat their interpretative visions as scholarly truth that invalidate others' interpretation, then real academic standards ought to apply (as well as a lot less fervour and being able to relax).
hgc's,I agree with those who object to soem kind of absolute approcah to interpretationa na dinstrumentations, but I think the crucial aspec t of the conversation is that the HIP concept has matured considerably since the the purist days of the 60's. I speak three times a week with musician friends in Europe- most of whom are in the early music world and there is no rigid dogma. Sev believes he is persecuted for his objections to HIP, but it's that he is looking at small details he dislikes- perfectly valid to go from the specific to the general, but as a contrarian he can only see the details he dislikes and I think he has not been deliberatly missing some wonderful music (like the delightful chamber Mahler 4).
Anyone spending time with professional musicians would see that HIP is an intellect structure that continues to evolve towards rather than away from openness. Scholarship has opened the flood gates and now there are more multiple options, more choices rather than less and the techniques of trying to understand orgianal sound continuinally provide new possiblities. There are arguments over details- why did Hubert cross his soundboard bracing under the clavichord bridge- and other arcana, but depsite Sev's characterization there is no enforcement patrol. I believe Sev is focussing his attention on a few individual cases of bad application of HIP from 30-40 years ago. The current generation, in WEurope at least, to be open and intellectually rigourous, but inevitably, as in the case of Norrington, the efforts can equal annoying music making. But listen to the Levin/Hogwoood Beethoven Piano concertoes- and these as performances stand with any interpretation, modern or HIP.
HIP has grown up- but a person still has to look in the direction of really musical application of it's prnciples. As alway, great music making is exceeedingly rare.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Hi Bambi,While I'm getting what SSI's objection is I'd believe in your description of things as far as HIP openness goes before SSI's "battle of all battles" characterization. Speaking to musicians who play in HIP-style orchestras and ensembles I've never had a being preached to experience.
Haven't had the opportunity to speak to any HIP-oriented conductors except for Andrew Parrott once, briefly, after a concert. He was very nice, not pushy or "my way or the highway" to anyone he spoke to. In fact, before the concert while he was going through what I guess is his standard one voice per part introductory speech, he didn't make any claims at all. It was more like "Well, we think this may be more like what things sounded like back then... it may sound odd to many of you, but I do hope you enjoy it."
The huge battle and gnashing of teeth? Maybe in SSI's neighbourhood people are more violence prone! I've only encountered nice HIP people in my neighbourhood.
Your AA post descriptions of the conversations you've had/people you've been speaking to are really interesting - makes me wonder about the different people I might have met if I'd become a music professor or instructor instead of an office worker.
Anyway, as a small population sample, none of the friends I have who are also music fans (like 1,000-2,000 LP/CD classical collections) show any concern over HIP or non-HIP. They just get and listen to stuff they like.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
