favorite keyboardists and period instruments
Riccardo
"tjako" <tjakov...@castel.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:aj1ivu$ni1$1...@news.essentkabel.com...
> Sybrand, STOP THIS NONSENS!
Nonsens? The only nonsens(e) I've read in this thread is the following :
it seems to me safer to guess that he would
prefer a modern piano, just as Brahms, Prokofiev, Richter and Gould
But maybe we have a medium in the NG who spoke with the Ghost of JSBach last
night.
Greetings,
Riccardo.
Sybrand Bakker
"Charles" <fra...@datacomm.ch> wrote in message
news:aj1mt3$17mv7u$1...@ID-75949.news.dfncis.de...
> Tjako
>
> The best thing to do is to ignore Sybrand's more trollish postings. One
day he
> will hopefully learn to channel his innate aggression towards more
constructive
> ends.
>
> Kind regards
> Charles
>
Strange reply from the only troll in this group.
Sybrand Bakker
tjako
like Sybrand claims to have 'THE' truth on Bach performance ....
Regards,
Tjako
http://www.tjakovanschie.com
"Charles" <fra...@datacomm.ch> schreef in bericht
news:aj1mt3$17mv7u$1...@ID-75949.news.dfncis.de...
| Tjako
|
| The best thing to do is to ignore Sybrand's more trollish postings. One
day he
| will hopefully learn to channel his innate aggression towards more
constructive
| ends.
|
| Kind regards
| Charles
|
| (PS just listening on the radio to Campra's 'Messe de Requiem' with
Herreweghe -
| very nice too!)
|
|
| "tjako" <tjakov...@castel.nl> wrote in message
| news:aj1ivu$ni1$1...@news.essentkabel.com...
| : Sybrand, STOP THIS NONSENS!
| :
| : Tjako
| :
| : "Sybrand Bakker" <pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> schreef in bericht
| : news:7ao5lusarevgic428...@4ax.com...
| : | On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 05:29:22 -0400, T. Ausland <> wrote:
| : |
| : | >The question of favorite Bach keyboardists came up in a discussion
| : | >I've been having; I suppose you guys have done this topic before and
| : | >might be bored of it, but all the same I thought it might be fun to
| : | >ask about favorite keyboard performances.
| : | >
| : | >Also I would like to talk about period-instrument performances: I
| : | >realize, after many hearings, that apart from harpsichord playing, I
| : | >disfavor them except as curiosities and academic tools.
| : | >
| : | >
| : | >-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
| : ==----------
| : | > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World!
| : | >-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19
Servers
| : =-----
| : |
| : | keyboard in Bachs era included : harpsichord, organ, clavichord.
| : | So if you want to discuss 'keyboard' performances, the modern Steinway
| : | concert grand must be considered as completely unsuitable to Bach's
| : | music, just like Glenn Gould demonstrated on all his recordings.
| : |
| : | Regards
| : |
| : |
| : | Sybrand Bakker
| : |
| : | anti-spam maatregel
| : | om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
| :
| :
|
|
Sybrand Bakker
> Of course I ignore Sybrand's silly opinions, but I get mad if some freak
> like Sybrand claims to have 'THE' truth on Bach performance ....
>
> Regards,
> Tjako
> http://www.tjakovanschie.com
>
>
>
ignoring all musicological evidence. I'm quite aware most pianists just
don't WANT to hear
Bach didn't compose for their instrument.
Strange is it though no pianist plays harpsichord works of Frescobaldi,
Sweelinck, Froberger, Couperin and may other .
I'm anxious to hear why not.
Oh yes, I am also quite aware how many musicians think of musicologists.
Tjako van Schie is definitely belonging to that category of musicians.
I get mad when some freak like Tjako, who should have known better, makes it
clear he is not interested at all in any of the composers intentions.
Sybrand Bakker
katie
this. It's not as though we can only have one performance of each Bach
piece. I love to hear Bach played on the harpsichord.... there's few things
I love more.... but one of them happens to be hearing Bach played on the
piano (yes, even by Glenn Gould!) I wouldn't like to have to give one up
for the other. Personally I don't have a harpsichord, so I play Bach on the
piano, also arrangements for other instruments eg guitar ensemble. I enjoy
this and I can't believe that Bach if he were around now would have any
problem with it. Of course we don't know what his opinion would be, but I
thought that he himself re-arranged pieces for different instruments, so I
imagine he would be pretty broad-minded about the whole thing. I would have
thought he would be happy to be reaching such a diverse and appreciative
audience. If pianists don't play harpsichord works by Frescobaldi et al
it's probably because they just don't have that special magic that Bach has.
Sybrand Bakker <pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:ulcqakf...@corp.supernews.com...
M. Slater
> If pianists don't play harpsichord works by Frescobaldi et al
>it's probably because they just don't have that special magic that Bach has.
>
As much as I love playing Bach's music, he has no special advantage on "magic".
Frescobaldi, Couperin, Scarlatti, John Bull, William Byrd, Froberger,
Buxtehude, Orlando Gibbons have all written pieces one could describe as
"magical". Is playing them on a piano absolutely correct? Probably not. Is
playing them on a piano incredible fun? Yes, absolutely!
Mark
Charles
news:20020811115101...@mb-cr.aol.com...
: >From: "katie" kt1...@hotmail.com
'correct' with respect to what and according to whom?
Regards
Charles
M. Slater
>Date: 8/11/2002 12:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>'correct' with respect to what and according to whom?
>
In the context of these sentences :
>Is playing them on a piano absolutely correct? Probably not. Is
>: playing them on a piano incredible fun? Yes, absolutely!
>
the answer is self-explanatory.
Mark
Charles
: >From: "Charles" fra...@datacomm.ch
So was your point simply that these composers didn't have access to (or knowledge
of) the modern piano? If so, I see no relationship with 'correctness', absolute
or otherwise.
Regards
Charles
M. Slater
>From: "Charles" fra...@datacomm.ch
>Date: 8/11/2002 2:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
>So was your point simply that these composers didn't have access to (or
>knowledge
>of) the modern piano? If so, I see no relationship with 'correctness',
>absolute
>or otherwise.
I am making no value judgements, Charles. You will be horrified to know that I
actually prefer playing my Roland C-80 digital harpsichord to my Italian
virginal. The Roland sounds great and I can make great music on it. William
Byrd on the piano? Why not? Gould did it. <eg>
Mark
Pan
wrote:
>I don't really understand why everyone gets so hot under the collar about
>this. It's not as though we can only have one performance of each Bach
>piece.
[snip]
It's really for the same reason that many people get a murderous rage
about matters of religion. For some people, this is really an
ideological, quasi-religious question.
Michael
To reply by email, please take out the TRASH (so to speak). Personal messages only, please!
Teseo
> 'correct' with respect to what and according to whom?
it's no matter of correctness but of common sense. Playing Frescobaldi on
the piano is simply ridiculous.
Teseo
Beth Diane Garfinkel
> Well, the pianoforte came around no later than 1709, when Bach was 24
> years old. Also I read once in some liner notes that Bach may have
> composed one of his keyboard concertos specifically for an early
> piano. Of course that piano wouldn't have sounded like a modern
> concert grand, but it would allow for easy variation of volume.
Yes and no. By and large, the dynamic range on early pianos works much
the way it does for other early instrument, as opposed to the modern
ones--less overall dynamic range, but quicker access to the extremes.
And with the aural equivalent of a few mirrors and a smoke machine,
it's not that difficult to make a harpsichord do the same.
> But that is not really the point. I find it hard to imagine that
> Bach, who when performing himself surely pulled out various stops on
> harpsichords to change volume and harmonics, would object, considering
> its marvelous expressive capacity, to having his pieces played on a
> modern piano.
Well, I do know that he would not have liked playing one himself. The
touch is completely different, so is the rest of the technique as a
result. At least, i can make the analogy to my own experience--I am a
harpsichordist, and when I play Mozart on a Mozart-era fortepiano, it
does what I tell it. By and large, a Steinway grand doesn't do what I
tell it. And I do think that's a fair analogy, because Forkel actually
described what Bach's hands looked like when he played the
harpsichord: you could barely see his fingers move, let alone hands,
arms, shoulders, or any of the other large muscle groups pianists
favor these days.
> If we can agree that his actually disfavoring better
> control of dynamics would be unthinkable, he would have nothing left
> to fault except the tone of the piano. For the piano hardly requires
> one to wash away polyphony with the sustain pedal, and a highly
> skilled performer (such as Gould, whom you very unjustly denigrate)
> can easily compensate for the lack of dual keyboards. What is there
> about the tone of the piano that should have bothered him? If we can
> think of nothing specific, it seems to me safer to guess that he would
> prefer a modern piano, just as Brahms, Prokofiev, Richter and Gould
> did.
I suspect he'd object to the felt-covered hammers, which dull the
tone, so that in order to compensate, it has to be tuned in equal
temperament with stretched octaves such that *every* *single*
*interval* on the piano is out of tune--especially for someone who was
alive at a time when violinists were still playing in quarter-comma
mean-tone. Also, it makes the instrument lose the "speaking" quality
of early pianos, which had leather-covered hammers. And worst of all,
the _apparent_ decay on a modern piano is much quicker than that on a
harpsichord, so it's very difficult to get a modern piano to make
audible polyphony, as I discovered when I heard a radio broadcast of
the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue played on harpsichord and piano
back-to-back. The Fantasy actually worked quite nicely on the piano,
but when it came to playing the fugue, the dots just didn't connect.
Beth
Beth
--
"Under the green wood tree/Who loves to lie with me/And tune his merry
note/Unto the sweet bird's throat/Come hither, come hither, come hither/
Here he shall see/No enemy/But winter and rough weather."
--William Shakespeare
tjako
regards,
Tjako
http://www.tjakovanschie.com
"katie" <kt1...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:3d5682eb$0$234$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
tjako
and many others on piano too.
b. Let the listener decide what he likes as it comes to performance
practice.
c. A performer has the right to play whatever he likes. A composer will
NEVER know how his work will be dealt with after his death by performers.
Times change, so do opinions.
d. Musicologists are useful people as they provide good background on
historical facts. (Sybrand is quite a bad musicologist, btw. as he is not
relating his opinions regarding the 'Bach on piano'-debate to modern
perfomances on both piano and other instruments.) AND: musicologists are not
performing interprets.
Tjako
http://www.tjakovanschie.com
"Sybrand Bakker" <pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> schreef in bericht
news:ulcqakf...@corp.supernews.com...
Ben Crick
wrote:
> It's really for the same reason that many people get a murderous rage
> about matters of religion. For some people, this is really an
> ideological, quasi-religious question.
>
De gustibus non disputandum:
Matters of taste are not for discussion.
Ben
--
Ben Crick <ben....@argonet.co.uk> ZFC Tm
Acorn RPC700 RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126 MB, 4.3 GB HD, x32 CD-ROM, MX56VX
Coming to you from Birchington near Margate in East Kent.
* We don't change the message: the message changes us.
Teseo
> a. I play Sweelinck, Frescobaldi, Soler, Scarlatti, Couperin, Händel, Bird
> and many others on piano too.
poor Sweelinck, Frescobaldi, Soler, Scarlatti, Couperin, Händel, Bird......
> A composer will
> NEVER know how his work will be dealt with after his death by performers.
... thus every performance is allowable, irrespective of the style and the
instrument employed. A very deep musicological assertion, I would say.
Teseo
Pan
<bgar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
[snip]
Excellent post, Beth.
>I suspect he'd object to the felt-covered hammers, which dull the
>tone, so that in order to compensate, it has to be tuned in equal
>temperament with stretched octaves such that *every* *single*
>*interval* on the piano is out of tune--especially for someone who was
>alive at a time when violinists were still playing in quarter-comma
>mean-tone.
[snip]
Here's the only point on which I differ with you. Surely, the piano
does not _have_ to be tuned to equal temperament with stretched
octaves.
Best,
Pan
wrote:
Yes, every performance is "allowable." There is no law against playing
Bach on the kazoo, if someone wants to do it. That doesn't mean you
have to listen to it or like it.
Charles
news:WcB59.56936$n04.1...@twister2.libero.it...
:
: Charles <fra...@datacomm.ch> wrote in message
Einstein once described common sense as the collection of prejudices acquired by
the age of eighteen. But personally, I've no problem with Frescobaldi on piano or
Bach on accordion for that matter. Even One Voice Per Part is OK!
Regards
Charles
Sybrand Bakker
> d. Musicologists are useful people as they provide good background on
> historical facts. (Sybrand is quite a bad musicologist, btw. as he is not
> relating his opinions regarding the 'Bach on piano'-debate to modern
> perfomances on both piano and other instruments.) AND: musicologists are
not
> performing interprets.
>
> Tjako
> http://www.tjakovanschie.com
>
Why should I have to do that. Historical evidence is historical evidence.
There is *NO* reason at all why I should relate my opinions to modern
performances. Why? Who determines that? You?
I've listened at various times to various pianists rendering harpsichord
music on piano. So what? If Bach would have composed his music for piano he
would have left out 90 percent of the ornaments. The ornaments played on a
piano, an instrument capable to sustain a tone, sound without exception
awful.
You still seem to ignore
a) the modern Steinway grand didn't exist in Bach's time.
That's a FACT, not an OPINION.
You seem to be uncapable to distinguishs FACTS from OPINIONs
b) Composers where pragmatics. They knew the limitations of an instrument.
They didn't compose what wasn't possible on a harpsichord
Is the modern concert grand a completely different instrument?
It IS! So what does that tell you? Apparently nothing.
I'm quite sure you can't call me a quite bad musicologist.
You have NO IDEA AT ALL about this profession, and it is only useful to you
when it confirms your own preconceptions.
No regards
Sybrand Bakker
Teseo
> But personally, I've no problem with Frescobaldi on piano or
> Bach on accordion for that matter. Even One Voice Per Part is OK!
Nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit.
Teseo
Tom Hens
Beth Diane Garfinkel <bgar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote...
<snip of very good comments>
> I suspect he'd object to the felt-covered hammers, which dull the
> tone, so that in order to compensate, it has to be tuned in equal
> temperament with stretched octaves such that *every* *single*
> *interval* on the piano is out of tune--especially for someone who was
> alive at a time when violinists were still playing in quarter-comma
> mean-tone. Also, it makes the instrument lose the "speaking" quality
> of early pianos, which had leather-covered hammers.
Or sometimes even hammers of bare wood, resulting in an even more
non-Steinway sound. According to Jos van Immerseel (who I tend to think of
as a reliable source in these matters), there are even early pianos that
have hammers with only one side covered in leather and the other side
remaining bare wood. The mechanism could be shifted sideways, allowing the
player a choice of which kind of hammer struck the strings.
Let me add one more general comment, completely unrelated to any objective
considerations or historical facts.
In these recurring discussions, which must have been going on in very
similar form since at least Wanda Landowska, I've often noticed that many
proponents of playing harpsichord music on a "modern", i.e. late
nineteenth-century, piano seem to assume that everyone likes the sound of
such an instrument, and that wanting to hear Bach (or anyone else) played
on the harpsichord is only due to some strange masochistic desire to deny
oneself the "marvelous expressive capacity" of that wonderful instrument
based on purely intellectual arguments. It never seems to occur to them
that a lot of people, regardless of all the very relevant issues of
historical accuracy and appropriateness to the music, don't like the sound
of those Steinway monstrosities very much (that are after all mainly
designed the way they are so they can be VERY, VERY LOUD to fill oversized
concert halls and keep up with bloated symphony orchestras), don't think
they're all that "marvelously expressive", and quite simply like the sound
of a harpsichord much better.
Jonathan Webster
> You still seem to ignore
> a) the modern Steinway grand didn't exist in Bach's time.
> That's a FACT, not an OPINION.
> You seem to be uncapable to distinguishs FACTS from OPINIONs
> b) Composers where pragmatics. They knew the limitations of an instrument.
> They didn't compose what wasn't possible on a harpsichord
> Is the modern concert grand a completely different instrument?
> It IS! So what does that tell you? Apparently nothing.
As uncomfortable as I am posting into this exceptionally hostile newsgroup,
I honestly would like to hear you rationally address what a few people have
brought up in response to your arguments, namely: "I thought that he himself
re-arranged pieces for different instruments". If Bach takes Vivaldi's RV580
in B minor and turns it into a concerto for four Harpsichords in A minor, he
is declaring that the piece for four violins is not "completely unsuitable"
for performance on four harpsichords, isn't he? Along the same lines an oboe
concerto written by Bach is apparently not "completely unsuitable" for
performance on a harpsichord. You can maybe understand why this leads people
to believe Bach would not have disagreed with the modern choice of playing a
piece written for harpsichord on an instrument that by no stretch of the
imagination can be considered less "suitable" than, say, an oboe. It leads
me to that belief. Perhaps you believe that such transcriptions are
acceptable because they involve instruments that are in existence during the
initial composition; maybe you would sooner hear a transcription of, say, an
18th century orchestral piece onto an 18th century harpsichord than a
transcription of the same piece onto a modern piano, but I cannot understand
why.
Please help me see the logic behind labeling certain instruments
"unsuitable" for Bach's music when Bach himself considered so many
different instruments suitable for not just his music but for individual
pieces. You seem so very adamant about this point that I really would like
to understand you better. I am not adamant about anything; I enjoy listening
to any kind of Bach performance. Nor am I angry, and I don't expect to be
unless you decide to call me a "freak" or a "wicked soul".
Thank You,
Jonathan
Unknown
I certainly couldn't have hoped for a more interesting response.
I have a few thoughts:
I can't accept the assertion that the modern piano has a dull tone,
although I am happy to agree that it can sound a lot softer than the
earlier keyboards. I have often heard good performers, and even bad
ones, make hard noises with the instrument; Gould was quite
proficient, I think, at doing this with Bach, and managed to make it
work in a number of fugues from the Well-Tempered Clavier, especially
prominently in the a-minor fugue of Book 1. I take the Steinway to
afford great variance in tone as well as volume, which is one of the
reasons why I speculate that Bach would have loved playing it (if he
got used to the action). I can see how it might come across as
irresponsible to say that he would actually prefer the contemporary
piano, and I would not feel any distress if he were to come back from
the dead and tell me otherwise. All the same, I feel swayed partly by
the simple thought that great composers in later times embraced the
modern piano as soon as it became available, not simply because it was
louder in concert halls, the most illustrative example being that of
Brahms, who was as committed to old-fashioned polyphony as a composer
could be after Beethoven, and who never asked that his late pieces be
played on an old keyboard even though he did not compose them with a
mind toward concert-hall virtuosity. No, Bach did not have a modern
piano to play on and couldn't judge, so I may be wrong. Yes, the
argument I offer is very indirect. But I have heard some pretty
compelling musical arguments: I especially recommend, to those who
haven't heard them, Murray Perahia's recent performance of the d-minor
concerto BWV 1052 and Glenn Gould's interpretation of the d-minor
toccata. The Perhahia performance is brilliant and bold, the modern
piano endowing the solo part with breadth and power that I had never
heard in it before (by the way the liner notes to the CD claim that he
might have written this part for an early piano and not a
harpsichord). As for Gould's version of the toccata, the marvelous
dynamic control, and the crisp polyphony and diversity of tone, strike
me as extremely convincing.
I don't want to miscommunicate my feelings about the harpsichord; I
love hearing Bach on harpsichord. I have heard Brandenburg 5 played
with a piano, and this comes across to me as a manifestly inferior
arrangement; I think maybe this is because the solo part carries more
of the spirit of continuo than that of the d-minor concerto, and to
avoid "washing out" the notes underneath the orchestra, a pianist must
forfeit the instrument's compensating advantages. Without the
harpsichord we would lose a great and distinctive pleasure; I merely
prefer hearing Bach on piano most of the time if I have to choose one
or the other.
Naturally I don't think that listening to harpsichord is somehow
masochistic, as one writer suggested I might. Hearing Bach played on
the kazoo might be masochistic, but hearing him on the harpsichord is
delightful.
Best,
TA
>I suspect he'd object to the felt-covered hammers, which dull the
>tone, so that in order to compensate, it has to be tuned in equal
>temperament with stretched octaves such that *every* *single*
>*interval* on the piano is out of tune--especially for someone who was
>alive at a time when violinists were still playing in quarter-comma
>mean-tone. Also, it makes the instrument lose the "speaking" quality
>of early pianos, which had leather-covered hammers. And worst of all,
>the _apparent_ decay on a modern piano is much quicker than that on a
>harpsichord, so it's very difficult to get a modern piano to make
>audible polyphony, as I discovered when I heard a radio broadcast of
>the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue played on harpsichord and piano
>back-to-back. The Fantasy actually worked quite nicely on the piano,
>but when it came to playing the fugue, the dots just didn't connect.
tjako
|
| > d. Musicologists are useful people as they provide good background on
| > historical facts. (Sybrand is quite a bad musicologist, btw. as he is
not
| > relating his opinions regarding the 'Bach on piano'-debate to modern
| > perfomances on both piano and other instruments.) AND: musicologists are
| not
| > performing interprets.
| >
| > Tjako
| > http://www.tjakovanschie.com
| >
|
| Why should I have to do that. Historical evidence is historical evidence.
| There is *NO* reason at all why I should relate my opinions to modern
| performances. Why? Who determines that? You?
Because HIP performances are not the only way to go. Evidence also only is
useful when interpreted.
| I've listened at various times to various pianists rendering harpsichord
| music on piano. So what? If Bach would have composed his music for piano
he
| would have left out 90 percent of the ornaments. The ornaments played on a
| piano, an instrument capable to sustain a tone, sound without exception
| awful.
Says more about your ears than about ornamentation on modern instruments....
| You still seem to ignore
| a) the modern Steinway grand didn't exist in Bach's time.
| That's a FACT, not an OPINION.
99% of the Harpsichords from Bach's time don't exist neither. Most HIP
performances are rendered on MODERN replica's, in MODERN acoustics, with
modern lights, etc. Even the cd's are modern. One cannot ignore the
influence of post-Bach performance practise on modern performers.
| You seem to be uncapable to distinguishs FACTS from OPINIONs
No. I simply am not as rigid as you, and even FACTS are partially based on
OPINIONS. And every FACT needs interpretation before one can do anything
with it.
| b) Composers where pragmatics. They knew the limitations of an instrument.
Agree. So are performers and musicologists.
| They didn't compose what wasn't possible on a harpsichord
| Is the modern concert grand a completely different instrument?
| It IS! So what does that tell you? Apparently nothing.
|
| I'm quite sure you can't call me a quite bad musicologist.
| You have NO IDEA AT ALL about this profession, and it is only useful to
you
| when it confirms your own preconceptions.
|
| No regards
|
| Sybrand Bakker
|
The same to you.
Tjako
http://www.tjakovanschie.com
Alain Naigeon
827hlu4qskvsk8qr0...@4ax.com...
> What a pleasure it is to read well-reasoned objections to my remarks.
> I certainly couldn't have hoped for a more interesting response.
>
> I have a few thoughts:
> I can't accept the assertion that the modern piano has a dull tone,
That's understandable !
However I'd like to ask whether changing the instrument shoudn't
imply, often, a kind of transcription here and there. For instance,
let's imagine the reverse situation, where we would play on the
harpsichord some music originally written for the piano - this would
be a pleasant thread in a rec.music.chopin NG :-) It's quite obvious
that long notes coudn't be played as written since they simply woudn't
be sustained on the harpsichord; one might then repeat them with
very soft articulations, for instance - any other idea welcome ;-)
Thus, conversely, it's seems quite sensible that ornaments written for
the harpsichord might sound heavy and confuse on the piano (though
it depends, of course, on what the performer is able to do - articulations,
etc). In such a case I personnally would consider that a slight rewriting
of these ornaments might then be the best way to *respect* the piece!
To be a little longer on this subject :
1) composers are not gods; sometimes an ornament is a real sugar written
by a genious; but, often, it's just a very common stylistic element;
and,
from time to time we'll have to face the truth that's it's just a trick
to hide
a passage that would sound a little weak without it ;-)
2) in such a case (the latter one), it's quite possible that the passage
would
*not* sound weak on the piano because it's able to play sustained notes;
thus, taking in account the fact that the composer did know the
harpsichord
and decided to write an ornament *for it*, then it doesn't seem
irrespectful
anymore to skip or to make lighter the ornament when played on the piano.
Certainly the buyer's (of a CD) or the musicologist's point of view are
different from the performer's one. If one plays piano, and if he feels
extremely attracted by some music, then playing this music on his (only)
instrument is just showing love for it! Now, if you're a musicologist, or
if you want to buy a CD - some musicologists do buy CDs :-) - then you
can nevertheless think that the best interpretation will be on harpsichord
and buy these CDs. While continuing to play it on your piano at home ;-)
The feeling that some music "doesn't work" on some instrument is so
dependant on personnal musical maturity and instrumental ability that
it's perhaps dubious to make general statements...
IMHO :-)
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Jsb1441
>Please help me see the logic behind labeling certain instruments
> "unsuitable" for Bach's music
Regarding the debate over piano vs. harpsichord I find the comments of Ralph
Kirkpatrick to be on target. He was, of course, a master at both harpsichord
and clavichord. Here is an excerpt from his excellent book "Interpreting Bach's
Well-Tempered Clavier".
"When I first sit down to play a fugue on the modern piano, I am impressed by
certain apparent advantages, yet later when the enchantment wears off I find
the instrument leading me toward a stylistic hybridization that has little to
do with what would have been Bach's own handling of the keyboard. I have been
led into a translation which, though it may convey some of the meaning, has
been substituted for Bach's original language. "
Bach on the piano, whether loved or not, remains a transcription.
John
M. Slater
>Thus, conversely, it's seems quite sensible that ornaments written for
>the harpsichord might sound heavy and confuse on the piano (though
>it depends, of course, on what the performer is able to do - articulations,
>etc). In such a case I personnally would consider that a slight rewriting
Without passing judgement either way, I would direct you to Glenn Gould's
recording of Elizabethan virginal music on the Steinway. Feel free to form your
own opinion.
Mark
Max Schmeder
> The question of favorite Bach keyboardists came up in a discussion
> I've been having; I suppose you guys have done this topic before and
> might be bored of it, but all the same I thought it might be fun to
> ask about favorite keyboard performances.
For fun, I'll narrow it down to favorite *moments* since I don't think
we've ever gotten that picky before. Here are three:
1) Edwin Fischer's opening scale in the D-major toccata, ascendent
literally and figuratively
2) Ton Koopman's opening trill in the Goldberg Variations
3) Robert Hill's mordent in the 1st conrapunctus of AOF (Hanssler
label)
(these are not necessarily endorsements of the entire performance)
Other opinions anyone?
Max
Teseo
> Most HIP performances are rendered on MODERN replica's
modern replicas are based on historical instruments
> in MODERN acoustics
in most instances HIP performances are made in the same places where baroque
music was once played
> modern lights, etc. Even the cd's are modern. One cannot ignore the
> influence of post-Bach performance practise on modern performers.
There is no influence. Modern HIP performances are based on the study of the
musical practice at Bach's time, they tend to become more and more free from
the influence of the romantic and post-romantic practice. This is not the
case for most pianists, of course.
It seems that you are competely unaware of what HIP is.
Teseo
Teseo
> Is the modern concert grand a completely different instrument?
> It IS! So what does that tell you? Apparently nothing.
It seems that many opposers of HIP performances believe that the modern
piano is superior in many aspects to the baroque keyboards. This is
completely untrue. The modern piano is DIFFERENT from the harpsichord or the
fortepiano, not superior to them. Generally speaking, modern instruments
evolved in such a way that they are only poor substitute of period
instrument for baroque music performance.
Teseo
Charles
: tjako <tjakov...@castel.nl> wrote in message
: ajadgb$h71$1...@news.essentkabel.com...
: > One cannot ignore the influence of post-Bach performance practise on
: > modern performers.
:
: There is no influence. Modern HIP performances are based on the study of the
: musical practice at Bach's time, they tend to become more and more free from
: the influence of the romantic and post-romantic practice. This is not the
: case for most pianists, of course.
:
: It seems that you are competely unaware of what HIP is.
:
: Teseo
Here's a couple of links to relevant postings in the Early Music Group:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C6FC21281
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E12D21281
I'm reminded of an interesting article I once read, tracing characteristics of
Harnoncourt's performance style to the musical traditions of the 'Wiener
Symphoniker!
nullius in verba.
Charles
Teseo
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C6FC21281
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E12D21281
.....absolutely insignificant for this topic.
Teseo
"We must attemp an interpretation which ignores the whole Romantic
performance tradition"
(N. Harnoncourt)
Ioannis
[snip]
> It seems that many opposers of HIP performances believe that the modern
> piano is superior in many aspects to the baroque keyboards. This is
> completely untrue. The modern piano is DIFFERENT from the harpsichord or the
> fortepiano, not superior to them. Generally speaking, modern instruments
> evolved in such a way that they are only poor substitute of period
> instrument for baroque music performance.
If those "poor substitutes" allow ME to express myself mysically better
by playing them, then they are "better".
Here I will quote my current piano teacher who did her Master's in piano
performance in Vienna:
"You are playing Fugue #II like it's a German march. This is not a
harpsichord you are playing. It's a damn piano. You know, the Well
Tempered Clavier pieces are "music" too!..."
> Teseo
--
Ioannis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
_____________________________________________
The moment you think it's x, it changes to ~x
Max Schmeder
> ....or an electronic keyboard, or a nuclear-powered organ....
or a nuclear-armed utterance..
> Teseo
Pan
wrote:
>tjako <tjakov...@castel.nl> wrote in message
>ajadgb$h71$1...@news.essentkabel.com...
>
>> Most HIP performances are rendered on MODERN replica's
>
>modern replicas are based on historical instruments
The attempt to replicate has been made.
>> in MODERN acoustics
>
>in most instances HIP performances are made in the same places where baroque
>music was once played
Not in the U.S.
>> modern lights, etc. Even the cd's are modern. One cannot ignore the
>> influence of post-Bach performance practise on modern performers.
>
>There is no influence. Modern HIP performances are based on the study of the
>musical practice at Bach's time, they tend to become more and more free from
>the influence of the romantic and post-romantic practice. This is not the
>case for most pianists, of course.
>
>It seems that you are competely unaware of what HIP is.
Have you read any Taruskin? "No influence"? If you don't climb down
from that ledge, there will be no more point in talking to you about
this than talking to the Taliban about Islam. Are you really as
blindly dogmatic as you seem to me in this post?
Alain Naigeon
20020813110632...@mb-dd.aol.com...
I've read quite recently a collection of old interviews with Glenn Gould,
and I felt in love with his words about, music, piano, and relationships
between music and piano, and his love for the music you mention (i.e.
Byrd, etc). I'll certainly happy to get these records as soon as I'll be
able
to afford them - it's just *too* easy to click on "buy now" at amazon :-)
My last click was for a Machaut record, still to come...
M. Slater
>I've read quite recently a collection of old interviews with Glenn Gould,
>and I felt in love with his words about, music, piano, and relationships
>between music and piano, and his love for the music you mention (i.e.
>Byrd, etc). I'll certainly happy to get these records as soon as I'll be
>able
>to afford them - it's just *too* easy to click on "buy now" at amazon :-)
>My last click was for a Machaut record, still to come...
Alain, I believe the liner notes stated that Gould said that Orlando Gibbons
was his favorite composer. The recording he made includes ALL trills indicated
in the Fitzwilliam Book. On the piano, it sounds quite silly (this is just my
opinion, of course). If I were performing Gibbons or Byrd on the piano for an
audience, I would use fewer ornaments and I would make sure the ones I used
were gorgeous. Again, this is just an opinion. On the harpsichord, the
ornaments have a startling effect. On the piano, it just sounds like alot of
buzzing. I repeat, this is just my personal opinion. As for amazon.com, I have
limited myself to one shopping spree per month. I have a similar weakness for
new discs of Guillaume Dufay's music.
Mark
Teseo
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message
3d599aaf...@news.erols.com...
> Not in the U.S.
I'm sorry for you
> Are you really as blindly dogmatic as you seem to me in this post?
If I'm wrong, show me why instead to be insulting.
Teseo
Teseo
3D5991...@olympus.mons...
> If those "poor substitutes" allow ME to express myself mysically better
> by playing them, then they are "better".
Good for you, but I think this has no relation with my previous statement.
T.
Charles
: Have you read any Taruskin? "No influence"? If you don't climb down
: from that ledge, there will be no more point in talking to you about
: this than talking to the Taliban about Islam. Are you really as
: blindly dogmatic as you seem to me in this post?
You know, any blind, talibanic, dogmatists worried about an immanent plunge from
their precarious ledge, should relax and chill out with Bach's Partita No. 3 for
Unaccompanied Ukulele:
http://www.elderly.com/recordings/items/NALU1996.htm
An ideal Christmas gift perhaps?
Regards,
Charles
Sybrand Bakker
wrote:
As for arrangements: if you listen closely or compare the score you
must notice Bach *never* transcribed the solo part unaltered, in fact
the alterations are rather large. So he considered playing the
original violin part *unchanged* as *unsuitable* for harpsichord, so
he changed it into the the *harpsichord's idiom*.
Compare the harpsichord with a modern piano.
Basic fact: A harpsichord can't sustain a tone.
This is the reason why long tones in *harpsichord* pieces are always
ornamented. Long tones are *not* ornamented in organ pieces.
So, even both are designated as being written for 'Clavier' you can
determine on which instrument you should play. Honestly, no one in
their right mind will ever play a Back organ piece for 2 manuals and
pedal on a single manual harpsichord. About pianists not doing that
I'm not so sure, they simply always display imperialistic behavior.
So, if Bach would have written the harpsichord piece for piano, would
he leave out the ornaments. My answer: he would definitely do so.
So for me that means:
if you are going to play a harpsichord piece on piano, and you play it
unchanged, you try to mimic a harpsichord on piano. You will fail in
doing so.
If you leave out the ornaments you don't need any more, you'd better
be honest and do not pretend you play Bach. You play your own
arrangement.
I'm saying this because composers like Bach and Couperin were anxious
their music was played as written.
At the same time they always rearranged pieces when transposing them
to a different medium.
Transposing a harpsichord piece to piano without any rearrangement is
denying the differences between a piano and a harpsichord to the
detriment of both.
The basic problem is: some people in this group seem to think music is
an universal language that didn't change at all from say Monteverdi to
the current day. However: they deny you can't perform Monteverdi's
Maria Vespers with a modern orchestra, as you can't replace cornetti
with trumpets.
No one, except James Galway, plays the 4 seasons on any other solo
instrument than violin. Which is right, because the 4 seasons were
written for violin, not for transverse flute, and there was a distinct
transverse flute idiom already when Vivaldi wrote the 4 seasons.
So yes: I'm basically against Bach's cello suites being played on
guitar, and Bach's viola da gamba sonatas on violoncello, and a whole
lot more. Bach would have rearranged and changed those pieces when
transferring them to a different medium.
The pieces, he borrowed for the Christmas Oratoria : he'd
significantly changed them all.
Regards
Sybrand Bakker
Tom Hens
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
<big snip>
> Have you read any Taruskin?
I don't know if you're aware of this, but Richard Taruskin isn't someone
taken very seriously, or even well-known, outside the USA. As far as I can
tell, his high profile in the US is largely due to the fact that he got to
write for The New York Times, a newspaper well-known by name but hardly
read outside the US.
John Briggs
indeed. But this does rather tend to cast doubt on his claim that
20th-century performance of early music owes a lot to Stravinsky!
John Briggs
julio galvao dias
> >
>.
> So, even both are designated as being written for 'Clavier' you can
> determine on which instrument you should play.
You can determine in "The Well Tempered Clavier" what preludes and
fugues are for harpsichord, organ, clavichord, luth-harpsichord or
piano-forte?
> I'm saying this because composers like Bach and Couperin were anxious
> their music was played as written.
> At the same time they always rearranged pieces when transposing them
> to a different medium.
>
> I'm basically against Bach's cello suites being played on
> guitar, and Bach's viola da gamba sonatas on violoncello, and a whole
> lot more. Bach would have rearranged and changed those pieces when
> transferring them to a different medium.
>
This is not always true:See for example first viola da gamba sonata
transcribed literaly for two flutes and continuo (very diffrent
medium), or
the the first two movements of the fourth organ sonata transformed in
the begining of the 2ª part of cantata 76 ipsis verbis.
Charles
: Compare the harpsichord with a modern piano.
: Basic fact: A harpsichord can't sustain a tone.
: This is the reason why long tones in *harpsichord* pieces are always
: ornamented. Long tones are *not* ornamented in organ pieces.
Your implication then, is that Leonhardt's scholarship is erroneous and the KoF
must have been written for pianoforte or other sustaining instrument?
Regards
Charles
Alain Naigeon
news: 01c2440d$9d55ba60$LocalHost@gateway...
Hi Tom, obviously US newspapers aren't read quite often outside the USA,
but, IMHO, amongst them, the New York Times is perhaps the most famous one!
This said, I must admit that 1) I read it once a year, 2) I don't know
Taruskin ;-)
Sybrand Bakker
You are -as you always do- implying something I didn't say.
When will you ever stop doing so?
I don't have the Leonhardt research handy in front of my computer, but yes I
do know he argued in favor of harpsichord. I also know he argued against
organ.
I don't have any reason not to believe him, as you seem to do.
*The* pianoforte didn't exist in Bach's lifetime, and there is no evidence
Bach ever wrote any piece for pianoforte, including the Musical Offering.
Regards
Sybrand Bakker
Charles
:
: "Charles" <fra...@datacomm.ch> wrote in message
: news:ajg27b$1ad044$1...@ID-75949.news.dfncis.de...
: > "Sybrand Bakker" <pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : Compare the harpsichord with a modern piano.
: > : Basic fact: A harpsichord can't sustain a tone.
: > : This is the reason why long tones in *harpsichord* pieces are always
: > : ornamented. Long tones are *not* ornamented in organ pieces.
: >
: > Your implication then, is that Leonhardt's scholarship is erroneous and
: > the KoF must have been written for pianoforte or other sustaining
: > instrument?
: >
: > Regards
: > Charles
: >
: >
:
: You are -as you always do- implying something I didn't say.
: When will you ever stop doing so?
No, I just pointing out an implication following from your assertion.
Let me spell it out:
I) SB: "long tones in *harpsichord* pieces are always ornamented"
II) GL: Each piece in the KdF is a harpsichord piece
Conclusion:
III) The long tones of each KdF piece are always ornamented
However, III is in obvious contradiction with the facts. Now:
((I and II => III) and (not III)) => ((not I) or (not II))
So, I'm afraid either yourself or Mr Leonhardt is PROVED wrong [inclusive 'or'!].
: I don't have the Leonhardt research handy in front of my computer, but yes I
: do know he argued in favour of harpsichord. I also know he argued against
: organ.
: I don't have any reason not to believe him, as you seem to do.
: *The* pianoforte didn't exist in Bach's lifetime, and there is no evidence
: Bach ever wrote any piece for pianoforte, including the Musical Offering.
Well, the Silbermann fortepiano existed in Bach's lifetime, moreover Bach not only
owned, but sold one. And, there is documentary evidence that the opening fugue in
the MO was initially extemporised on such an instrument.
Regards
Charles
Tom Hens
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote...
> Tom Hens wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if you're aware of this, but Richard Taruskin isn't
> > someone taken very seriously, or even well-known, outside the USA.
> > As far as I can tell, his high profile in the US is largely due
> > to the fact that he got to write for The New York Times, a
> > newspaper well-known by name but hardly read outside the US.
>
> That's not entirely fair: his work on Stravinsky is taken very seriously
> indeed. But this does rather tend to cast doubt on his claim that
> 20th-century performance of early music owes a lot to Stravinsky!
I have never heard his name used in any discussion about the performance
practice of early music, except by Americans on the internet. That's no
doubt largely due to the fact that he's trying to refight battles that have
been over in Europe for at least a generation now.
On a web search for some more of his writings I came across a long essay of
his about Tchaikovsky, or rather the way views on Tchaikovsky's sexuality
influenced the way his music has been perceived by critics. It shows that
Taruskin thinks that in gay relationships there is an "active partner" and
a "passive partner" [*]. Such an astounding basic lack of knowledge doesn't
stop him from writing a 12,000-word essay which is basically all about the
topic of homosexuality. He's also woefully misinformed about the trials of
Oscar Wilde, but that doesn't stop him from discussing that topic either. I
find that very telling about the man.
Let's hope he's better informed about Stravinsky.
[*] "(...) tolerance for homosexual relations was greater in Russia than
anywhere else in Europe during the nineteenth century--at least when, as
usually happened, the active partner socially outranked the passive one
(...)". The "usually" is quite funny too. Not only does Taruskin believe
that there are "active" and "passive" partners in gay relationships, he
even knows that these invented types of partners had a different social
status in most gay relationships in nineteenth-century Russia. I wonder
where he got his figures from.
Teseo
> should relax and chill out with Bach's Partita No. 3 for
> Unaccompanied Ukulele:
thanks a lot, I'm sure it will sound better than on a modern Stainway :-)
T.
Teseo
> Well, the Silbermann fortepiano existed in Bach's lifetime
sure, but the Silbermann fortepiano's sound has little to do with that of
any modern pianoforte.
T.
John Briggs
book "Text and Act" (1996). As for homosexuality in Russia in the late
19th-century, who is to say that relationships weren't like that?
Reconstructing past sexualities is even more difficult than reconstructing
playing styles: there aren't any treatises! (For a valiant attempt see Sir
Kenneth Dover's "Greek Homosexuality" (1978)) So I suppose you could say
that Taruskin has been hoist with his own petard (if that didn't sound like
an interesting sexual practice...) Taruskin's whole argument is that we are
simply projecting our own prejudices onto the past, and here you have caught
him doing exactly that!
John Briggs
Tom Hens wrote
Pan
<pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
[snip]
>No one, except James Galway, plays the 4 seasons on any other solo
>instrument than violin. Which is right, because the 4 seasons were
>written for violin, not for transverse flute, and there was a distinct
>transverse flute idiom already when Vivaldi wrote the 4 seasons.
[snip]
As a tangential point, Jean-Jacques Rousseau arranged the Four Seasons
for _SOLO_ flute _WITHOUT_ accompaniment.
But my larger point is that you are mistaken for a very simple reason:
Flute methods from the early 18th century typically instruct flutists
to perform violin music by doing nothing much more than transposing
notes outside the flute's range up an octave. So "distinct idiom" or
not, flutists were expected to play violin music without much fanfare
about "arrangements." I'd have to review the methods to see what they
say about ways for flutists to interpret double, triple, and quadruple
stops.
Pan
<tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
That's of only passing interest to me, and none of it really makes a
difference to his arguments. He is a person within the movement who
has discussed ways in which it is part of Modernism, and has
demolished the absurd conceit that it is possible for people alive now
to think exactly like others did in the 18th century.
Pan
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>That's not entirely fair: his work on Stravinsky is taken very seriously
>indeed. But this does rather tend to cast doubt on his claim that
>20th-century performance of early music owes a lot to Stravinsky!
Not necessarily. Perhaps it would make the claim more credible, or
perhaps it would have no effect one way or the other.
For what it's worth, I thought his points about the "appeal to
authority" as an outgrowth of post-Stravinskyan positivism were
persuasive, up to a point. Nothing was further from Baroque practice
than to attempt to justify all choices in interpretation by referring
to so-and-so's treatise. And then Taruskin discussed ways in which
various members of the HIP movement deviate in substantial ways from
the instructions in the treatises - sometimes doing things
diametrically opposed to instructions - all the while claiming that
their performances are more authentic or somehow a more accurate
attempt to recreate the 18th-century performance style than the
so-called "non-HIP" performances.
Taruskin does sometimes seem to be polemical just for the sake of
being polemical, but that does not ipso facto invalidate all of his
arguments.
On a personal note, I just came back from the National Flute
Association's convention in Washington, D.C. There were a number of
performances of 18th-century music on copies of 18th-century
instruments. One was an example of a rather historically uninformed
performance: Someone who performed a Poco Adagio movement from a piece
by C.P.E. Bach with short grace notes before the beat instead of long
appoggiaturas, in violation of the instructions in the treatise on the
Correct Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments. On the other hand, there
was an amazing flutist who explained the instructions Quantz gave
regarding tempo and then proceeded to play a work by Quantz that way,
pulling it off by playing 160=quarter with every note clean. That was
a historically informed performance of the Quantz, and what was more
important is that it was also a great performance.
Tom Hens
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
<re. Richard Taruskin:>
> That's of only passing interest to me, and none of it really makes a
> difference to his arguments. He is a person within the movement
What movement?
> who
> has discussed ways in which it is part of Modernism, and has
> demolished the absurd conceit that it is possible for people alive now
> to think exactly like others did in the 18th century.
He has indeed shown himself quite capable of demolishing absurd conceits of
his own invention (more usually called "straw men").
Pan
<tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>
>Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
>
><re. Richard Taruskin:>
>
>> That's of only passing interest to me, and none of it really makes a
>> difference to his arguments. He is a person within the movement
>
>What movement?
The HIP movement. He is a gamba player IIRC.
>> who
>> has discussed ways in which it is part of Modernism, and has
>> demolished the absurd conceit that it is possible for people alive now
>> to think exactly like others did in the 18th century.
>
>He has indeed shown himself quite capable of demolishing absurd conceits of
>his own invention (more usually called "straw men").
Wasn't such an absurd conceit mentioned earlier in this thread and
reacted to incredulously by me? I forget who made such an assertion,
since it was a while ago. I take it it was not you?
Tom Hens
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
> On 23 Aug 2002 01:11:47 GMT, "Tom Hens"
> <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>
> >
> >Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
> >
> ><re. Richard Taruskin:>
> >
> >> That's of only passing interest to me, and none of it really makes a
> >> difference to his arguments. He is a person within the movement
> >
> >What movement?
>
> The HIP movement. He is a gamba player IIRC.
I didn't know that playing the gamba required a membership card of any
particular movement, or how Taruskin once having fiddled away on one gives
his writings any greater weight. If you start out with the notion that
there is such a thing as "the HIP movement" with a coherent set of ideas
you're already on the wrong track that people like Taruskin have followed
so gleefully. There are just individual musicians, and most of them aren't
very interested in the first place in debating vague, abstract and usually
completely non-musical notions, which is what Taruskin has made a career
of. To quote Gustav Leonhardt (not talking about anyone in particular, mind
you): "Musicians who talk about music too much are suspicious characters."
> >> who
> >> has discussed ways in which it is part of Modernism, and has
> >> demolished the absurd conceit that it is possible for people alive now
> >> to think exactly like others did in the 18th century.
> >
> >He has indeed shown himself quite capable of demolishing absurd conceits
> >of his own invention (more usually called "straw men").
>
> Wasn't such an absurd conceit mentioned earlier in this thread and
> reacted to incredulously by me? I forget who made such an assertion,
> since it was a while ago. I take it it was not you?
I certainly have never seen anyone making the claim that historically
informed performance practice has anything to do with the notion that
anyone alive now can "think exactly like others did in the 18th century".
I'm too lazy to go digging up the quotes now, but this ludicrous idea was
one of the things Nikolaus Harnoncourt was already pointing out *wasn't*
what his endeavours were all about in the notes to his earliest Bach
recordings back in the 1960s. So clearly that particular straw man had
already been constructed for attack by some at that time, decades before
Taruskin resurrected it for his own attacks.
Pan
<tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>
>Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
>
>> On 23 Aug 2002 01:11:47 GMT, "Tom Hens"
>> <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
>> >
>> ><re. Richard Taruskin:>
>> >
>> >> That's of only passing interest to me, and none of it really makes a
>> >> difference to his arguments. He is a person within the movement
>> >
>> >What movement?
>>
>> The HIP movement. He is a gamba player IIRC.
>
>I didn't know that playing the gamba required a membership card of any
>particular movement, or how Taruskin once having fiddled away on one gives
>his writings any greater weight. If you start out with the notion that
>there is such a thing as "the HIP movement" with a coherent set of ideas
>you're already on the wrong track that people like Taruskin have followed
>so gleefully. There are just individual musicians, and most of them aren't
>very interested in the first place in debating vague, abstract and usually
>completely non-musical notions,
Many of them might not be interested in debating, but there is/are
some reason(s) that they decided to play "old" music on "old"
instruments, attempting to revive (within certain limits) old
practices. I, too, have reasons for doing HIP performances of late
Romantic and early Modernist music: I think they are better, all
things being equal. We can discuss that further if you like, but do
keep in mind that we have ample sound recordings (from the early 20th
century, mostly) of _those_ historical styles.
> which is what Taruskin has made a career
>of. To quote Gustav Leonhardt (not talking about anyone in particular, mind
>you): "Musicians who talk about music too much are suspicious characters."
So all those who wrote treatises in earlier periods should also be
suspect, following the same logic. It's an interesting premise, but
what are we left with then?
>
>> >> who
>> >> has discussed ways in which it is part of Modernism, and has
>> >> demolished the absurd conceit that it is possible for people alive now
>> >> to think exactly like others did in the 18th century.
>> >
>> >He has indeed shown himself quite capable of demolishing absurd conceits
>> >of his own invention (more usually called "straw men").
>>
>> Wasn't such an absurd conceit mentioned earlier in this thread and
>> reacted to incredulously by me? I forget who made such an assertion,
>> since it was a while ago. I take it it was not you?
>
>I certainly have never seen anyone making the claim that historically
>informed performance practice has anything to do with the notion that
>anyone alive now can "think exactly like others did in the 18th century".
>I'm too lazy to go digging up the quotes now,
I'm not:
Not in the U.S.
Michael
> but this ludicrous idea was
>one of the things Nikolaus Harnoncourt was already pointing out *wasn't*
>what his endeavours were all about in the notes to his earliest Bach
>recordings back in the 1960s.
Teseo in 2002 doesn't seem aware of that and makes the bald claim that
"there is no influence" of what Tjako called "modern" performers on
"HIP" performances.
> So clearly that particular straw man had
>already been constructed for attack by some at that time, decades before
>Taruskin resurrected it for his own attacks.
Taruskin himself has stated that the idea of "authentic" performances
was primarily a marketing ploy by record companies, not a claim of
performers.
Tom Hens
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
Sorry, I missed this reply earlier.
> On 26 Aug 2002 00:36:44 GMT, "Tom Hens"
> <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
<snip>
> > which is what Taruskin has made a career
> >of. To quote Gustav Leonhardt (not talking about anyone in particular,
> >mind you): "Musicians who talk about music too much are suspicious
> >characters."
>
> So all those who wrote treatises in earlier periods should also be
> suspect, following the same logic. It's an interesting premise, but
> what are we left with then?
It was just a passing remark in a TV interview, which he made with a smile
and I thought was entertaining. Considering he's published books himself,
it's not to be taken as anything other than an ironically-worded admonition
that in the end, one should be concerned with how to play music, not with
vague theoretical speculation about it.
> >I certainly have never seen anyone making the claim that historically
> >informed performance practice has anything to do with the notion that
> >anyone alive now can "think exactly like others did in the 18th
> >century".
> >I'm too lazy to go digging up the quotes now,
<inserted earlier post by himself in reply to Teseo snipped>
> > but this ludicrous idea was
> >one of the things Nikolaus Harnoncourt was already pointing out *wasn't*
> >what his endeavours were all about in the notes to his earliest Bach
> >recordings back in the 1960s.
>
> Teseo in 2002 doesn't seem aware of that and makes the bald claim that
> "there is no influence" of what Tjako called "modern" performers on
> "HIP" performances.
This last paragraph is a complete non-sequitur. It's got nothing to do with
what I said, what Harnoncourt (in my vague paraphrase from memory) said, or
what Teseo said (as far as I can tell). What has the (painfully obvious)
notion that one can't "think exactly like others did in the 18th century"
to do with the (equally painfully obvious) fact that one *can* build
extremely accurate replicas of 18th century instruments, or determine with
a fair amount of accuracy in what kind of surroundings 18th century music
was performed?
> > So clearly that particular straw man had
> >already been constructed for attack by some at that time, decades before
> >Taruskin resurrected it for his own attacks.
>
> Taruskin himself has stated that the idea of "authentic" performances
> was primarily a marketing ploy by record companies, not a claim of
> performers.
That the existance of "the HIP movement" (to continue using this fuzzy
concept) is the result of a marketing ploy by record companies is of course
a completely ludicrous claim. Taruskin overall seems to be mainly obsessed
with the semantics of the word "authentic" and its use on record covers,
not with saying anything substantial about the problems of performing
centuries-old music in the present day.
Pan
<tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>
>Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote...
>
>Sorry, I missed this reply earlier.
>
>> On 26 Aug 2002 00:36:44 GMT, "Tom Hens"
>> <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
><snip>
>> > which is what Taruskin has made a career
>> >of. To quote Gustav Leonhardt (not talking about anyone in particular,
>> >mind you): "Musicians who talk about music too much are suspicious
>> >characters."
>>
>> So all those who wrote treatises in earlier periods should also be
>> suspect, following the same logic. It's an interesting premise, but
>> what are we left with then?
>
>It was just a passing remark in a TV interview, which he made with a smile
>and I thought was entertaining. Considering he's published books himself,
>it's not to be taken as anything other than an ironically-worded admonition
>that in the end, one should be concerned with how to play music, not with
>vague theoretical speculation about it.
The context you've provided is congruent with how excellent a musician
Leonhardt is, and I agree with his point, as clarified by you.
>> >I certainly have never seen anyone making the claim that historically
>> >informed performance practice has anything to do with the notion that
>> >anyone alive now can "think exactly like others did in the 18th
>> >century".
>> >I'm too lazy to go digging up the quotes now,
><inserted earlier post by himself in reply to Teseo snipped>
>> > but this ludicrous idea was
>> >one of the things Nikolaus Harnoncourt was already pointing out *wasn't*
>> >what his endeavours were all about in the notes to his earliest Bach
>> >recordings back in the 1960s.
>>
>> Teseo in 2002 doesn't seem aware of that and makes the bald claim that
>> "there is no influence" of what Tjako called "modern" performers on
>> "HIP" performances.
>
>This last paragraph is a complete non-sequitur. It's got nothing to do with
>what I said, what Harnoncourt (in my vague paraphrase from memory) said, or
>what Teseo said (as far as I can tell).]
Did you read what he said? If you don't trust that I quoted him
accurately, check Google.
> What has the (painfully obvious)
>notion that one can't "think exactly like others did in the 18th century"
>to do with the (equally painfully obvious) fact that one *can* build
>extremely accurate replicas of 18th century instruments, or determine with
>a fair amount of accuracy in what kind of surroundings 18th century music
>was performed?
Surroundings? Sure.
But "no influence"? That was what I was reacting to. I doubt it's
possible for anyone to play the Bach Cello Suites without being
somehow influenced by Casals - even if the influence amounts to a
consciousness of Casals' interpretation in his own hands or the hands
of any of numerous imitators, and a desire to avoid copying him at all
costs. Much of music history consists of choices people have made to
continue traditions or buck them, but it has never been possible to
will away the influence of everyone other than oneself.
>> > So clearly that particular straw man had
>> >already been constructed for attack by some at that time, decades before
>> >Taruskin resurrected it for his own attacks.
>>
>> Taruskin himself has stated that the idea of "authentic" performances
>> was primarily a marketing ploy by record companies, not a claim of
>> performers.
>
>That the existance of "the HIP movement" (to continue using this fuzzy
>concept) is the result of a marketing ploy by record companies is of course
>a completely ludicrous claim.
It is absolutely a ludicrous claim, and not one that Taruskin has ever
made, to my knowledge. You must have erroneously conflated "authentic"
and HIP. In the articles I've read, Taruskin makes clear that these
are not the same.
> Taruskin overall seems to be mainly obsessed
>with the semantics of the word "authentic" and its use on record covers,
>not with saying anything substantial about the problems of performing
>centuries-old music in the present day.
I certainly disagree. I read "Shock of the Old" quite some time ago,
but I thought it was quite interesting. Thoughtful performers can
consider philosophical thinking in choosing how to interpret the music
they play. (Note: I am a performer, and all of my degrees are in
performance.)