HIP versus varnish
William Sommerwerck
All music -- at least, that written up to and including the New Viennese
School -- has a performance style that is not necessarily shown in the score.
Simply playing the notes might result in a competent performance, but it does
not automatically reveal the composer's intentions.
"Varnish" is the improper application of one era's performance styles to another
era.
I have no problem with Gardiner viewing the BS9 from a strictly Classical point
of view, because it presents these works from a different and interesting
perspective. But only the first two symphonies are Haydn-esque; the Eroica
represents a major shift in orchestral music. Gardiner's ur-Classical approach
almost certainly does not represent how these works were played in Beethoven's
time.
Here's a good example of HIP... Just a few years ago I heard Murray the P
playing piano works by Berg or Webern (I forget which) the way the composer said
they were supposed to be played. They came across as real, involving music,
rather than chromatic meanderings.
Kimba W. Lion
<will...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>I have no problem with Gardiner viewing the BS9 from a strictly Classical point
>of view, because it presents these works from a different and interesting
>perspective. But only the first two symphonies are Haydn-esque; the Eroica
>represents a major shift in orchestral music. Gardiner's ur-Classical approach
>almost certainly does not represent how these works were played in Beethoven's
>time.
But our ears don't live in Beethoven's time. IOW, we can't help but
appreciate the music in a different way than people did 200 years ago. So
why attempt to play it that way?
I have been trained to run, not walk, away from "historically informed
performances." In the process of second-guessing how things "must" have
sounded many generations ago, the performances I've heard show that
*music-making* gets lost. They fogot it shouldn't be about reconstructing
the past, music must be lived.
I suppose, though, that the HIP movement is just a matter of taste,
another method of approaching familiar music in a different way, just as
appealing to some as Swingling or Mooging the music is to me. I've had two
HIP Beethoven cycles-- Norrington went into the trash (I didn't even want
to re-sell it because I didn't want to be responsible for inflicting it on
anyone else); the Hanover Band was at least worthy of resale. (FWIW, my
favorite cycle is Krips'.)
>"Varnish" is the improper application of one era's performance styles to another
>era.
I would add the condition that if the "wrong" era's performance style is
codified and not *felt*, then it's varnish. Applying the "wrong" style
because the performer lives that style would probably result in an
appealing performance.
Dan
represents a major shift in orchestral music. Gardiner's ur-Classical
approach almost certainly does not represent how these works were
played in Beethoven's time.>>
I've never really thought of Syms 1 and 2 as particularly Haydnesque,
although they are clearly classical. The "menuet" that's really a
scherzo in No. 1, The use of the winds in the first movement of Sym. 2,
its slow movement, which is very Beethovenian, ever early Beethoven,
the reiterativeness of the scherzo, and the incessant pounding in the
last movement. All Beethoven traits that aren't that far from the
Erioca, although on a different scale.
Could you explain? What historical information does your opinion come
from?
<<Here's a good example of HIP... Just a few years ago I heard Murray
the P playing piano works by Berg or Webern (I forget which) the way
the composer said
they were supposed to be played. They came across as real, involving
music, rather than chromatic meanderings.>>
Since Berg and Webern both wrote only one published solo piano work
apiece, Berg, the Op. 1, very early, but very late Romantic Sonata that
revolves around B minor, and Webern, the very late 12-tone and
chrystaline Variations, Op. 27, it seems puzzling that one could be
listening so closely as to be able to distinguish between previous
"chromatic meanderings" and real involving music, but not remember if
the piece was in B minor or 12-tone. Just puzzled, that's all.
Dan Plante
Dan
appreciate the music in a different way than people did 200 years ago.
So why attempt to play it that way?>>
We don't live in the 19th century but I'm sure you don't have a problem
with listening to this repertoire played on what are essentually a
modified late 19th century style with matching instruments. So, maybe
we should play everything on synthesizers and edit them down to 3
minutes because most people are now attuned to hearing synthesized
music from every source in three minute chunks.
<< I have been trained to run, not walk, away from "historically
informed performances." In the process of second-guessing how things
"must" have
sounded many generations ago, the performances I've heard show that
*music-making* gets lost. They fogot it shouldn't be about
reconstructing the past, music must be lived.>>
Who trained you and why were you trained that way? First of all, to
judge all performances from one or two you heard seems to me either
like generalizing from too few experiences. Either that, or you are
unwilling to accept that composers and musicians had different
sensibilities than the ones you are familiar with. I agree with you,
music must be lived, but only admitting music to be performed in a
post-romantic style seems to be like being unwilling to listen to a
composers work on his own terms. I don't have any problems with
listening to a Furtwaengler Beethoven 9th, but on the other hand, one
has to admit that it could only be partially related to the work
Beethoven imagined.
When we view paintings, we don't demand that one repaints the
characters in Rembrandt in modern dress, or to paint over it in
acrylics, or replace the lamp in the Van Gogh's Potato Eaters with an
electric table lamp. It may make for an interesting re-interpretation,
but it wouldn't be considered Rembrandt or Van Gogh, only referencing R
or VG. Similarly, we may read or see a classic play in a modernized
rendition, but if anyone wanted to understand what the author said
within the context of his time, he or she would read the original and -
more than that - would read about the culture of the time to better
understand what he meant. Meanings, sensibilities, and cultural
referents change over time.
<< I've had two HIP Beethoven cycles-- Norrington went into the trash
(I didn't even want to re-sell it because I didn't want to be
responsible for inflicting it on anyone else); the Hanover Band was at
least worthy of resale. (FWIW, my favorite cycle is Krips'.)>>
Well, I don't care for Norrington and wasn't crazy about Hanover Band
either, but I think you have to hold the conductor responsible for the
interpretation, not the aspproach. Does playing something in 19th c.
style stand for everyone's interpretation along those lines? I
wouldn't think so.
I don't much care for Karajan's late Beethoven cycle or, at the other
extreme, Toscanini for that matter. But that means little more than I
don't care for the way vK or T did this repertoire at a particular
point in their respective careers. Nothing more.
I don't mean to harp - everyone should be able to like or not like
whatever they do without having to justify it to anyone else. It just
seems to me that you're
closing your mind and closing yourself off to an entire epoch and an
artistic experience on that account and that's too bad.
Dan Plante
Kimba W. Lion
that Google Groups perpetuates that funky AOL quoting style when he wrote:
><<But our ears don't live in Beethoven's time. IOW, we can't help but
>appreciate the music in a different way than people did 200 years ago.
>So why attempt to play it that way?>>
>
>We don't live in the 19th century but I'm sure you don't have a problem
>with listening to this repertoire played on what are essentually a
>modified late 19th century style with matching instruments.
The key word there is "modified". Just because a modern orchestra
resembles a late 19th century orchestra doesn't mean it is one or is
trying to be one. Life goes on, and modifications are made.
>So, maybe
>we should play everything on synthesizers and edit them down to 3
>minutes because most people are now attuned to hearing synthesized
>music from every source in three minute chunks.
You're going to absurd extremes. I'm not averse to a 3-minute reduction
played on a Moog, but I never said everything should be done that way. I
did say that I don't think anyone can truly re-create the sound of a
performance from generations long gone, and the attempts I've heard have
been dreadfully dull. I tend to believe this is due to a focus on
"historical accuracy" rather than on music making.
>Who trained you and why were you trained that way?
The HIP recordings I've heard trained me.
>First of all, to
>judge all performances from one or two you heard seems to me either
>like generalizing from too few experiences.
It's true that I haven't experienced everything. It's also true that I
everything I've heard in this category has not been enjoyable for me.
I only *named* two, however.
>Either that, or you are
>unwilling to accept that composers and musicians had different
>sensibilities than the ones you are familiar with.
I'm willing to admit that I have different sensibilities than anyone or
even everyone else. I think it's delusional to say that anyone alive knows
the sensibilities of anyone who lived hundreds of years ago.
>I agree with you,
>music must be lived, but only admitting music to be performed in a
>post-romantic style seems to be like being unwilling to listen to a
>composers work on his own terms. I don't have any problems with
>listening to a Furtwaengler Beethoven 9th, but on the other hand, one
>has to admit that it could only be partially related to the work
>Beethoven imagined.
We live in a post-Romantic era, everything that is done is colored by the
current societal sensibilities. Even HIP is done from a post-romantic
sensibility, it's just post-Romanticism filtered through certain
agreed-upon rules. I don't happen to like the results of those rules--at
least, the results that I have heard.
What I'm saying is that a HIP is not the same as taking a DAT recorder
back in time to the premiere of Beethoven's 9th. A HIP is a 21st century
musician's opinion and no more or less valid than Stokowski's opinion or
Blomstedt's. But the HIP opinions I've heard don't appeal to me.
Therefore, I shy away from the genre.
>When we view paintings, we don't demand that one repaints the
>characters in Rembrandt in modern dress, or to paint over it in
>acrylics, or replace the lamp in the Van Gogh's Potato Eaters with an
>electric table lamp. It may make for an interesting re-interpretation,
>but it wouldn't be considered Rembrandt or Van Gogh, only referencing R
>or VG.
A painting is a physical artifact of another era, a real thing that exists
and is not required to be re-interpreted. A piece of music only exists
when it is interpreted. The marks on the pages of the score are not music,
they are guidelines for interpretation. An interpreter brings to his
performance everything he has experienced, and a modern interpreter cannot
presume to have the mindset of an interpreter from ages past.
If one were to "re-interpret" a Rembrandt or Van Gogh painting, he would
have to do it differently. One would not presume to call the result a
Rembrandt or Van Gogh work. It's just as silly presume we have heard
"Beethoven's music" in a HIP of a Beethoven score. The "historically
informed performance" label is too pompous. One might gain certain
insights by experiencing the sonorities of vintage instruments, but it
still takes visceral involvement to make music, not mere information.
>Similarly, we may read or see a classic play in a modernized
>rendition, but if anyone wanted to understand what the author said
>within the context of his time, he or she would read the original and -
>more than that - would read about the culture of the time to better
>understand what he meant. Meanings, sensibilities, and cultural
>referents change over time.
What you're implying is that each audience member would be responsible for
interpreting the interpretation presented on the stage. This is a fine
academic exercise. But I don't approach music academically.
Have you ever danced to Beethoven's 7th? I have. It's great.
>Well, I don't care for Norrington and wasn't crazy about Hanover Band
>either, but I think you have to hold the conductor responsible for the
>interpretation, not the aspproach.
OK, show me an example where the approach produces something more visceral
than an academic exercise.
>I don't much care for Karajan's late Beethoven cycle or, at the other
>extreme, Toscanini for that matter. But that means little more than I
>don't care for the way vK or T did this repertoire at a particular
>point in their respective careers. Nothing more.
What more should it mean?
FWIW, I don't care for anything Karajan ever did, and I grew up with
Toscanini's Beethoven but I've lost my taste for it. (However, I will
always be grateful to my grandmother for giving me a copy of LM-6901
when I was five years old.)
>It just seems to me that you're
>closing your mind and closing yourself off to an entire epoch and an
>artistic experience on that account and that's too bad.
If someone presented me with an artistic (i.e., moving) experience and not
a mere academic experience, maybe I'd feel differently.
Richard Loeb
emotionally wanting - my interest spec. is vocal and I would give up Rene
Jacobs Nozze for Kleiber without blinking an eye as I would give up
Harnoncourt for Richter. Richard
- "Kimba W. Lion" <kimbawlion...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1107974140.1044d88355d8185bd2e49d081360dc17@teranews...
Albert Edelman
> than an academic exercise.
Discussions between people in favor of HIP or against will never end, don't
have to end but always do provoke mutual misunderstanding. Let me add a bit
to this confusion.
A very appealing Beethoven recording (to me) is the one with the Orchestra
of the Eighteenth Century conducted by Frans Brüggen, as many of you might
know, in his younger days a very famous recorder player and one of the
pioneers in the modern day performance of very early to baroque repertoire.
For already more than two decades, he has been conducting his OotEC, a group
of very devoted players coming together not just for the money but just for
the fun. In fact (and I know this because I have, as a singer, been involved
in a staged production of Rameau's Indes Galantes with the Orchestra), they
split the money that's left after a project, and if they can, they just
spend it all on food and booze. Oh, and they do a hell of a job making
music!
As has been said: HIP is just another way of looking at music we already
know very well, and that has been performed for an incredibly long time in
roughly the same way, especially if you compare it to the pace in which
performance practice has changed in earlier centuries. I must say, hearing
Tchaikovsky 6 being played on period (i.e., naturally, not baroque, but 19th
century) instruments by the Belgian orchestra Anima Eterna a couple of years
ago during the Holland Early Music Festival Utrecht was a great revelation,
allowing me to hear individual lines as opposed to the dense block of sound
I was used to hearing.
Bold maybe: HIP focusses more on the context of the work being played than
modern 19th century-ish symphonic performance practice, and can thereby add
something new. (The 21th century orchestra, modelled and expanded after the
19th century orchestra, is only in very few cases the size the composer had
at his hands at the time of composition.) I'm just feeling lucky that I'm
able to hear 'symphonic repertoire' performed in a HIP fashion now and then,
but I can't tell if you have the same access.
That everybody may find the music the way he likes it best!
--
Albert (the Dutch)
-----------------------
Qu'entends-je?
(Hébé, Les Indes Galantes)
Paul Ilechko
> I don't have time to write a long essay, so this will have to be brief...
>
> All music -- at least, that written up to and including the New Viennese
> School -- has a performance style that is not necessarily shown in the score.
> Simply playing the notes might result in a competent performance, but it does
> not automatically reveal the composer's intentions.
>
> "Varnish" is the improper application of one era's performance styles to another
> era.
>
> I have no problem with Gardiner viewing the BS9 from a strictly Classical point
> of view, because it presents these works from a different and interesting
> perspective. But only the first two symphonies are Haydn-esque; the Eroica
> represents a major shift in orchestral music. Gardiner's ur-Classical approach
> almost certainly does not represent how these works were played in Beethoven's
> time.
How can you possibly know that? Orchestras in Beethoven's time were
familiar with the music of Mozart and Haydn. Their natural reaction when
confronted with something new would be to relate it to what they already
knew. I would expect that they *would* play Beethoven in a very
classical way, and it would take significant time for that to evolve.
Paul Ilechko
> I agree - most of the "revelatory" HIP performances I have heard have been
> emotionally wanting - my interest spec. is vocal and I would give up Rene
> Jacobs Nozze for Kleiber without blinking an eye as I would give up
> Harnoncourt for Richter.
And I find Richter's Bach Cantatas to be unlistenable, unlike someone
like Rilling who has learned from the HIP movement without adopting
their methods.
Michael
Albert Edelman wrote:
> > OK, show me an example where the approach produces something more
visceral
> > than an academic exercise.
>
> Discussions between people in favor of HIP or against will never end,
don't
> have to end but always do provoke mutual misunderstanding. Let me add
a bit
> to this confusion.
And I do not understand at all why they go on all the time. Obviously
neither HIP nor "romantic" or whatever playing styles as such guarantee
a musically satisfying performance. You can find lots of HIP stuff that
isn't very good, especially since it became such a craze in the 80s and
90s, and everyone had to do it, often without the substantial knowledge
and experience required.
That doesn't discount the approach as such at all though. Yes, we don't
have "18th century ears" - just like we don't have "18th century eyes"
but still don't repaint old paintings, as had already been pointed out.
We look back at multiple layers of recpetion and performance style, and
it can be very fascinating to dig through these to get an idea what
sound and expression were like at the time the music was written adn
first played.
There is much less guessing in a serious HIP approach than many would
think. First of all, we still have many old instruments or can
reconstruct them. When you play old instruments, they tell you a lot
and answer many questions.
In Berlin, there is a museum of musical instruments. When I went there
as a kid, I found it only natural to see the instruments and
immediately want to hear how they sound. I find it very strange that a
lot of people don't even want to hear that.
I learned to play the horn and the bass, and experimenting with old
instruments tells you a lot, not just about the sound as such, but also
about the playing style they were built for. They almost tell you "play
me like this".
And then there is a considerable body of actual written evidence for
playing styles, such as Leopold Mozart's violin method which is
actually not an exercise book but a book about how to play musically
well, with a lot of examples written out for the interested reader.
With the exception of some personalities like Norrington, whose
professoral "let me explain to you what everyone else is doing wrong"
attitude is understandably putting a lot of people off, most serious
HIPsters do not make any claims to absolute "authenticity". Most
notably Harnoncourt, who keeps repeating ad nauseam that he doesn't
want to reconstruct historic performances, but studies performance
practice to acquire a wider and, yes, maybe more adequate, stylistic
vocabulary.
He also wrote 2 very interesting books which are also available in
English. These books are collections of articles and essays, so you can
also just "sample" them. I promise what you read will change your
perception of historical music (I don't mean Albert, I mean "you" in
general).
William Sommerwerck
> appreciate the music in a different way than people did 200 years ago.
> So why attempt to play it that way?
Because it makes muck more sense than applying _current_ performance practices.
You've probably never heard Beethoven performances from the early 20th century.
Horrible, horrible.
> I have been trained to run, not walk, away from "historically informed
> performances." In the process of second-guessing how things "must" have
> sounded many generations ago, the performances I've heard show that
> *music-making* gets lost. They fogot it shouldn't be about reconstructing
> the past, music must be lived.
You're largely right, but that's the fault of the interpreters, not HIP itself.
William Sommerwerck
point
>> of view, because it presents these works from a different and interesting
>> perspective. But only the first two symphonies are Haydn-esque; the Eroica
>> represents a major shift in orchestral music. Gardiner's ur-Classical
approach
>> almost certainly does not represent how these works were played in
Beethoven's
>> time.
> How can you possibly know that?
Because the music itself tells us that. Not to mention that Lud was a weirdo.
Read the descriptions of him conducting.
> Orchestras in Beethoven's time were
> familiar with the music of Mozart and Haydn. Their natural reaction when
> confronted with something new would be to relate it to what they already
> knew. I would expect that they *would* play Beethoven in a very
> classical way, and it would take significant time for that to evolve.
You might be right, but if that were true, where would that leave the Eroica?
The 5th? The 7th?
Michael
informed
> performances." In the process of second-guessing how things "must"
have
> sounded many generations ago, the performances I've heard show that
> *music-making* gets lost. They fogot it shouldn't be about
reconstructing
> the past, music must be lived.
It makes it a bit hard to believe you actually listened to your
Norrington CDs. He has been accused of many things, some of them
probably justified, but lack of vitality and music-making is one which
can't be made to stick on him. The playing is actually very emotional
and the music-making, meaning the phrasing and shaping of the music is
very active. That is why I actually like to listen to his performances
once in a while. There is little in there that is not attentively
played in a "speaking" and rhythmical lively way.
> I suppose, though, that the HIP movement is just a matter of taste,
> another method of approaching familiar music in a different way, just
as
> appealing to some as Swingling or Mooging the music is to me. I've
had two
> HIP Beethoven cycles-- Norrington went into the trash (I didn't even
want
> to re-sell it because I didn't want to be responsible for inflicting
it on
> anyone else); the Hanover Band was at least worthy of resale. (FWIW,
my
> favorite cycle is Krips'.)
Why Krips?
Michael
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >> I have no problem with Gardiner viewing the BS9 from a strictly
Classical
> point
> >> of view, because it presents these works from a different and
interesting
> >> perspective. But only the first two symphonies are Haydn-esque;
the Eroica
> >> represents a major shift in orchestral music. Gardiner's
ur-Classical
> approach
> >> almost certainly does not represent how these works were played in
> Beethoven's
> >> time.
>
> > How can you possibly know that?
>
> Because the music itself tells us that. Not to mention that Lud was a
weirdo.
> Read the descriptions of him conducting.
You have to keep in mind that B was seriously hampered by his bad
hearing. OK, maybe he shouldn't have conducted at all then. But can it
be held against him that he wanted to bring his musical creations to
live himself after working on them for many years?
Few people then actually conducted in the modern sense of the word.
Maybe B waving and pointing at musicians was a strange thing for people
in the first place, and some of those descriptions may be exaggerated.
On the other hand, his trying to coax players into playing the way he
wanted instead of just giving them the tempo and entry cues could tell
us that he indeed wanted something different from the traditional way
of playing they were used to...
William Sommerwerck
> Why Krips?
Because they're the _definitive_ London Festival recordings.
fl.traverso
"saner" performances of his music in his own time and those
may not have been any less acceptable unless you think, say,
Stravinsky was the only valid interpreter of his own
works. Funny you seem to think that diversity or relativism is
only true or alive today.
Paul Ilechko
> That doesn't discount the approach as such at all though. Yes, we don't
> have "18th century ears" - just like we don't have "18th century eyes"
> but still don't repaint old paintings, as had already been pointed out.
We don't repaint them, but we did realize that weren't supposed to be
quite that brown, and we cleaned them off to discover the brilliant
colors hidden beneath centuries of grime.
Paul Ilechko
>>Orchestras in Beethoven's time were
>>familiar with the music of Mozart and Haydn. Their natural reaction when
>>confronted with something new would be to relate it to what they already
>>knew. I would expect that they *would* play Beethoven in a very
>>classical way, and it would take significant time for that to evolve.
>
>
> You might be right, but if that were true, where would that leave the Eroica?
I would expect orchestras of his day to attempt to play it as if it were
by Haydn. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not an expert in historical performance
practice.
fl.traverso
Beethoven more or less like Gardiner's (or Savall's
for that matter) would the concertgoers then reacted
to its performance as if they just saw something
extraterrestrial? :)
Dan Koren
"William Sommerwerck" <will...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:110k4q6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Here's a good example of HIP... Just a few years ago I heard Murray the P
> playing piano works by Berg or Webern (I forget which) the way the
> composer said
> they were supposed to be played. They came across as real, involving
> music,
> rather than chromatic meanderings.
Are you saying Murray is HIP?
Many among us think he is
actually FLOP.
dk
Dan Koren
news:1107967806.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> When we view paintings, we don't demand that one repaints the
> characters in Rembrandt in modern dress, or to paint over it in
> acrylics, or replace the lamp in the Van Gogh's Potato Eaters with an
> electric table lamp. It may make for an interesting re-interpretation,
> but it wouldn't be considered Rembrandt or Van Gogh, only referencing R
> or VG. Similarly, we may read or see a classic play in a modernized
> rendition, but if anyone wanted to understand what the author said
> within the context of his time, he or she would read the original and -
> more than that - would read about the culture of the time to better
> understand what he meant. Meanings, sensibilities, and cultural
> referents change over time.
>
Your analogy may seem seductive on the surface, but on
closer inspection it is fundamentally flawed. Painting,
writing, architecture and sculpture are not *PERFORMING*
arts. They work in an entirely different manner than the
latter. The artist expresses himself or herself through
physical objects or written texts that people examine
and digest on their own terms and make anything they
want out of the experience.
Performing arts work through interposers -- actors,
singers, musicians, dancers, conductors -- who must
create a credible impression they actually live the
parts. That is very difficult to accomplish in any
case, and it becomes even harder if one attempts to
mimic the performance styles and practives of bygone
eras. This is one of the reasons so many of the HIP
performances fail to sound conivincing (at least to
my ears).
dk
Dan
resembles a late 19th century orchestra doesn't mean it is one or is
trying to be one. Life goes on, and modifications are made.>>
First of all, ALL of the strings are built or rebuilt to 19th century
standards of sound, as are the wind instruments and brass. These
changes change the sound and the construction so they suit late 19th c.
music. Most of them have little to do with the older versions, just
like the piano. Second, every string player of any stature has been
trained on ALL the 19th century show pieces and masterpieces and the
esthetic that goes along with them. This becomes the reference point
with every player. Not only that, 18th c music - like all music -
is composed to the sound and techniques of the composers know. They
are perfectly suited to the music.
<< I did say that I don't think anyone can truly re-create the sound of
a performance from generations long gone, and the attempts I've heard
have been dreadfully dull.>>
Why can't we get close enough to get into their world?. We know the
instruments, we are getting to be able to play them with some kind of
skill, and we know a lot about performance style from lots of sources.
<<I think it's delusional to say that anyone alive knows the
sensibilities of anyone who lived hundreds of years ago.>>
Maybe not completely, but even if we can't experience the
sensibilities of yesteryear as they did, we can understand a good bit
about them by reading their literature and history, experiencing their
art, and knowing how they talked about things they experienced in
ordinary life. Isn't this why we go to school?
<<We live in a post-Romantic era, everything that is done is colored
by the current societal sensibilities. >>
I agree with you that the first job is to identify our own assumptions
and that one has to decide whether they are applicable or not. But, I
think that when one has matured in the music of another time,
little-by-little, one starts to think and feel within the art of that
time. It's not much different than an actor shedding his own persona
and becoming the character he or she plays. Personally, I think that
should be number 1 on the list of things to do when studying a work for
performance, no matter how you
<<A HIP is a 21st century musician's opinion and no more or less valid
than Stokowski's opinion or Blomstedt's.>>
I won't argue validity here because I think everyone listens to
something and either takes something meaningful away from it or
doesn't. And, if something doesn't appeal to you, that it's your
choice to move onto something else.
<<A painting is a physical artifact of another era, a real thing that
exists and is not required to be re-interpreted.>>
But don't we interpret pictures we see every time we look at them.
Isn't that interaction and thought process what makes a painting a
meaningful experience - as opposed, say, to looking at a design. The
painting is partly what we see in it, not just what's there.
<< The marks on the pages of the score are not music, they are
guidelines for interpretation.>>
There much more than that. I can't imagine any thoughtful performer
every agreeing with that.
<<An interpreter brings to his performance everything he has
experienced, and a modern interpreter cannot presume to have the
mindset of an interpreter from ages past.>>
Well, I'd disagree about everything. One of the first thing a
responsible performer asks him or herself is "what did the composer
mean" or what did the composer want," not how can I make it reflect
everything in my life I have experienced. One of the second things is
how do I make the performance cohere like the piece I'm playing.
This has nothing to do with "mindset," This has to do with how a
particular note function, whether it's part of this motive or that
line, how to make a connection between one thing and another. A series
performer doesn't really care about mindsets. I'm not sure what a
mindset is, though. Sounds like a fuzzy late 60s buzzword.
Re: a play <<What you're implying is that each audience member would be
responsible for
interpreting the interpretation presented on the stage. This is a fine
academic exercise.>>
No, this is what thinking people do when they go to a play. And,
that's the whole point of an interpretation, to give a point of view
that the audience can add to his understanding of the play. At least I
always thought this was the case. Especially a classic play.
<<But I don't approach music academically. Have you ever danced to
Beethoven's 7th? I have. It's great.>>
While you wouldn't want to see me dance, I feel it every time I hear
the scherzo or last movement. Probably just like you. How can one
not?
<<OK, show me an example where the approach produces something more
visceral than an academic exercise.>>
As for Beethoven, I'd suggest Harnoncourt's performance of the
seventh. Not on period instruments, but arguably HIP. Mozart, how
about Frans Bruggen's performance of the late symphonies that used to
be on Philips. I've always thought No. 40 was particularly
beautiful. The English Concert recording of Haydn #44 is pretty
passionate and I've always loved Simon Standage's Four Seasons.
Then there's Gardner's Bach B minor Mass.
Raymond Hall
news:420a...@news.meer.net...
You are correct in my view only to an extent. I see many so-called 'HIP'
performances as attempts to look afresh at the scores, possibly using older
(period) instruments, and usually reduced forces, and maybe, with a view to
shaking off the ridiculous romantic and "varnished and 'styled as
accustomed' excesses of the older type of conductors - the Mangelburgs, the
Fartwranglers and so on" who managed to crucify already established
war-horses, that most modern conductors and musicians wouldn't dare to get
away with today*, let alone really want play or record. But for those who
do, then I see no reason why conviction, and sounding convincing, should be
absent from anyone's ears.
I still don't see why some so-called 'HIP' conductors and musicians cannot
be convinced by their own realisation of how they want the music to sound
like. All are entitled and indeed obligated to do some research, look at
scores afresh, and not rely on listening to previous recorded efforts for
their "inspiration" and box of cheap tricks, or the fact that some
orchestras are always "accustomed" to playing certain warhorse music a
certain way. Add a new trick, and hey, this is conductor Y, who is obviously
different from conductor X.
Bah!!!!!!!
Ray H
Taree
Michael
There is a lot of truth in your reflections. However, you do overlook a
few factors. To examine a written text for instance, you have to be
able to read the text (obviously...). If you are not familiar with the
language it is written in, or if it is a text with unfamiliar grammar
and vocabulary, you have to learn these in order to be able to start
beginning to understand what the text actually says and "means". That
is very true too when it comes to the performance (or even just the
study) of historical music. The "meaning" of the notes, not in the
sense of the "meaning behind the notes", but in the sense what they
actually represent as playing instructions, changes massively depending
what period you are looking at. A performer should be able to read
these texts "correctly". In past eras, people were often not aware of
or ignored that the musical notation had changed in many respects.
The performing musicians (at least the instrumentalist) uses tools for
his performance, and it is very instructive to examine what the tools
of the age were.
Studying historical notation and performance practices, as well as the
conditions under which these works were performed (room sizes,
acoustics, ensemble sizes) can give you many new insights into the
substance and "meaning" of the music, and give you additional and
potentially more adequate stylistic means to formulate your
performance.
It is often overlooked that playing music, especially music written by
other people and also in large ensembles, is as much if not even more a
craft than completely free artistic expression.
> dk
Raymond Hall
news:1107997808.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Albert Edelman wrote:
> > OK, show me an example where the approach produces something more
visceral
> > than an academic exercise.
>
> Discussions between people in favor of HIP or against will never end,
don't
> have to end but always do provoke mutual misunderstanding. Let me add
a bit
> to this confusion.
> Most notably Harnoncourt, who keeps repeating ad nauseam that he doesn't
> want to reconstruct historic performances, but studies performance
> practice to acquire a wider and, yes, maybe more adequate, stylistic
> vocabulary.
In a nutshell.
Ray H
Taree
Michael
Dan wrote:
> <<The key word there is "modified". Just because a modern orchestra
> resembles a late 19th century orchestra doesn't mean it is one or is
> trying to be one. Life goes on, and modifications are made.>>
>
> First of all, ALL of the strings are built or rebuilt to 19th century
> standards of sound, as are the wind instruments and brass. These
> changes change the sound and the construction so they suit late 19th
c.
> music.
That is actually not entirely correct. Substantial modifications
continued to be made to all instruments throughout the 20th century,
and playing styles continued to change too.
The string instruments got the steel strings which were not even in use
everywhere in the 1930s and 40s. Vibrato wasn't used very much by
string players around 1900 while it became a "must" in later decades.
Part of the HIP ahcievement is to "switch off" that continuous,
unreflected use of vibrato and "rediscover" the richness of sounds you
can make on string instruments without vibrato, and the more expressive
than mandatory use of vibrato.
The same applies to the wind instruments, most of which were played
without vibrato well into the 20th century in many schools. Many wind
players now use vibrato, some of them continuously like the strings.
The instruments themselves were also modified quite a bit. The double
horn was introduced, and many players now play on the b flat horn all
the time because it is easier and safer. Bores and mouthpieces changed,
a lot of local playing schools influenced each other, were adopted or
disappeared. For instance the traditionally used oboe in Germany,
Austria, and other middle and Eastern European countries disappeared
almost everywhere and was replaced by the French oboe. Now you can only
hear it in Vienna. On the other hand, the French bassoon is almost
completely gone and not even played by all French orchestras anymore.
For instance, the OdP and Bastille play on German bassoons, only the
Orchestre National and some other French orchestras still use the
French model.
Even the WP (who have actually retained most of the late 19th century
instruments) sound style has evolved and changed during the 20th
century, although it is safe to say that they sound as close to the
late 19th century as you get today.
> Most of them have little to do with the older versions, just
> like the piano. Second, every string player of any stature has been
> trained on ALL the 19th century show pieces and masterpieces and the
> esthetic that goes along with them. This becomes the reference point
> with every player. Not only that, 18th c music - like all music -
> is composed to the sound and techniques of the composers know. They
> are perfectly suited to the music.
>
> << I did say that I don't think anyone can truly re-create the sound
of
> a performance from generations long gone, and the attempts I've heard
> have been dreadfully dull.>>
>
> Why can't we get close enough to get into their world?. We know the
> instruments, we are getting to be able to play them with some kind of
> skill, and we know a lot about performance style from lots of
sources.
I completely agree with you here. It seems to me that many who keep
saying that have never actually played on period instruments. Like I
said in an earlier post, old instruments "tell you" how they want to be
played. If you study the notation and performance practices carefully
and apply some good musical sense, you should be able to reproduce
something which is very close to what it must have sounded like.
Keeping in mind of course that the local variations in sound and
playing style at any given point in history must have been enormous.
> <<I think it's delusional to say that anyone alive knows the
> sensibilities of anyone who lived hundreds of years ago.>>
>
> Maybe not completely, but even if we can't experience the
> sensibilities of yesteryear as they did, we can understand a good bit
> about them by reading their literature and history, experiencing
their
> art, and knowing how they talked about things they experienced in
> ordinary life. Isn't this why we go to school?
>
> <<We live in a post-Romantic era, everything that is done is colored
> by the current societal sensibilities. >>
>
> I agree with you that the first job is to identify our own
assumptions
> and that one has to decide whether they are applicable or not. But,
I
> think that when one has matured in the music of another time,
> little-by-little, one starts to think and feel within the art of that
> time. It's not much different than an actor shedding his own persona
> and becoming the character he or she plays. Personally, I think that
> should be number 1 on the list of things to do when studying a work
for
> performance, no matter how you
>
> <<A HIP is a 21st century musician's opinion and no more or less
valid
> than Stokowski's opinion or Blomstedt's.>>
I don't think many claim that seriously to begin with. The good thing
is - we can have all the styles, and it is very interesting and
rewarding to explore them. I think it actually sharpens our stylistic
perception and enriches our playing even in a more "modern" style.
Blomstedt is a good example. I like his Beethoven recordings and find
it fascinating to "dig through" the stylistic layers of his
interpretation and the playing of the SD.
I second all these recommendations. But then again, I do not understand
how Kimba can find the Norrington set he had at one point just an
academic exercise. They are rhythmically very lively and very
theatrical, many find them actually over the top.
Dan
closer inspection it is fundamentally flawed. Painting,
writing, architecture and sculpture are not *PERFORMING*
arts. They work in an entirely different manner than the
latter. The artist expresses himself or herself through
physical objects or written texts that people examine
and digest on their own terms and make anything they
want out of the experience.>>
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but it misses the point I'm trying
to get at. Disregarding for a moment the personal aspect of
interpretation, but just sound object. Don't you think that it's
pretty reasonable to assume that when Mozart wrote a work, the notes he
wrote down were heard in his head as representing the sound and
articulation of the instruments he knew, not ones that were invented
for a completely different kind of music a century later? And, in
doing so, don't you think he scored his works to take advantage of the
the particular characteristics of the instruments, exploiting those
characteristics to create a particular sonority? Furthermore, being a
violinist and violist, don't you think he knew the traditions in which
certain kinds of writing would be played? And, if one is in doubt
about what that means one only has to look at his father's violin
manual. I'm sure he knew those aspects about all orchestral
instruments. Things you do, things you don't do when playing such and
such a passage.
<<Performing arts work through interposers -- actors,
singers, musicians, dancers, conductors -- who must
create a credible impression they actually live the
parts. That is very difficult to accomplish in any
case, and it becomes even harder if one attempts to
mimic the performance styles and practives of bygone
eras. This is one of the reasons so many of the HIP
performances fail to sound conivincing (at least to
my ears).>>
Yes, performing is difficult to accomplish in any case, but I don't see
why trying to go beyond current conventions is such a feat or why it
should put people off, unless those people only demand more of the same
old thing each time? Why not expect people to engage themselves past
routine? Is this any different than doing an old play in a new and
avant garde style?
There's a lot to say in response, but I think what it really boils down
to is that people like what they like. If you listen to a HIP
performance while yearning for the warmth and caress of the Vienna
Philharmonic you will never be satisfied. Likewise, if you think that
the Vienna Philharmonic can never give a performance of Mozart that's
artistically meaningful because it's modern instruments give it a
homogeniety of sound that was never intended, then you'll never be able
to accept that either. Neither traffics in what the other has to
offer.
But, that's ok. It shouldn't have to Why should everyone like
everything - or the same thing as someone else. I don't think one
should have to like anything. But, there is a door to Mozart's world
that will stay perpetually closed if one doesn't open oneself up to the
experience of sound and articulation that he did.
Dan Plante
Dan
continued to be made to all instruments throughout the 20th century,
and playing styles continued to change too.>>
Yes, you're quite right, but these modifications - plus those you point
out about changing from gut to metal e-strings, the increased use of
string vibrato, the introduction of wind vibrato, the double horn,
were made in the service of late 19th century music, since this was
pretty much the focal point of concert life through the 20th century.
It was a matter of instruments being improved in order to better handle
Strauss, Mahler and the like. I abbreviated a tad too much. But, thank
you for bringing up important information.
<<Like I said in an earlier post, old instruments "tell you" how they
want to be played.>>
Missed it before, but this is exactly true. When you play a Baroque
violin without a chin rest, the phrasing, determined by restrictions in
shifting positions, tells you how to phrase. Any violinist-composer
would have known this and not even had to notate such things. This is
lost to a modern violinist who can shift at will.
<< On the other hand, the French bassoon is almost completely gone and
not even played by all French orchestras anymore. For instance, the OdP
and Bastille play on German bassoons, only the
Orchestre National and some other French orchestras still use the
French model.>>
It does have a very loyal kind of cult following in the US however.
As I said in another post, I think a lot of dissatisfaction is that
people are looking for things that are never going to be there in a HIP
performance.
Dan Plante
Dan Plante
Dan Koren
"Dan" <dplan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1108011392.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> <<Your analogy may seem seductive on the surface, but on
> closer inspection it is fundamentally flawed. Painting,
> writing, architecture and sculpture are not *PERFORMING*
> arts. They work in an entirely different manner than the
> latter. The artist expresses himself or herself through
> physical objects or written texts that people examine
> and digest on their own terms and make anything they
> want out of the experience.>>
>
> Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but it misses the point I'm trying
> to get at. Disregarding for a moment the personal aspect of
> interpretation, but just sound object. Don't you think that it's
> pretty reasonable to assume that when Mozart wrote a work, the notes he
> wrote down were heard in his head as representing the sound and
> articulation of the instruments he knew, not ones that were invented
> for a completely different kind of music a century later?
a) I make no such assumptions.
b) Even if this were hypothetically the case,
no one can tell today (incidentally, one
could argue a similar case about playwrights,
but no one bothers, since it is well accepted
that the stage director who sets Hamlet and
the actors who perform it today will do
whatever they like). Everything we (think we)
know about long dead people from another age
comes from someone's interpretation of their
life and creations, not from objective facts.
c) Even if this were hypothetically the case,
I couldn't care less.
> And, in
> doing so, don't you think he scored his works to take advantage of the
> the particular characteristics of the instruments, exploiting those
> characteristics to create a particular sonority? Furthermore, being a
> violinist and violist, don't you think he knew the traditions in which
> certain kinds of writing would be played? And, if one is in doubt
> about what that means one only has to look at his father's violin
> manual. I'm sure he knew those aspects about all orchestral
> instruments. Things you do, things you don't do when playing such and
> such a passage.
I have absolutely no interest in speculations about
what Mozart (or any other composer) may have heard
in his head or consciously wanted to accomplish
The composer's work ends when the score is printed.
> <<Performing arts work through interposers -- actors,
> singers, musicians, dancers, conductors -- who must
> create a credible impression they actually live the
> parts. That is very difficult to accomplish in any
> case, and it becomes even harder if one attempts to
> mimic the performance styles and practives of bygone
> eras. This is one of the reasons so many of the HIP
> performances fail to sound conivincing (at least to
> my ears).>>
>
> Yes, performing is difficult to accomplish in any case, but I don't see
> why trying to go beyond current conventions is such a feat or why it
> should put people off, unless those people only demand more of the same
> old thing each time? Why not expect people to engage themselves past
> routine? Is this any different than doing an old play in a new and
> avant garde style?
>
> There's a lot to say in response, but I think what it really boils down
> to is that people like what they like.
Isn't that true of all life in general? ;-)
> If you listen to a HIP
> performance while yearning for the warmth and caress of the Vienna
> Philharmonic you will never be satisfied. Likewise, if you think that
> the Vienna Philharmonic can never give a performance of Mozart that's
> artistically meaningful because it's modern instruments give it a
> homogeniety of sound that was never intended, then you'll never be able
> to accept that either. Neither traffics in what the other has to
> offer.
When I listen to music, I have no expectations
whatsoever about how it should sound. My only
expectation is to have a compelling aesthetic
experience. If it sounds good to my ears, then
I like it. If it doesn't, I don't. I couldn't
care less if is HIP, HOP, FLIP, FLOP, JAZZ or
watchamacallit.
dk
xys...@hotmail.com
<<I have been trained to run, not walk, away from "historically
informed
performances.">>
You have missed little, if you weren't interested in a bunch of
untalented crooks selling their pauper shtick as the second coming.
regards,
SG
Michael
Or you may risk missing a lot by not listening to people like
Harnoncourt, who has studied, played and conducted his way through
massive portions of the musical repertoire beginning in the Renaissance
age over half a century now. There is probably no one on the planet
right now who knows more about the repertoire that he performes than
he, from a musicological and practical performer point of view.
Michael
Fortunately, there is no need for wild speculations. We have his
father's treaty on violin playing which was published in 1756, the year
in which his famous son was born. So we know for sure what he taught
Wolfgang. It has also to be noted that Leopold was not a reformer, he
was very much a mainstream kind of guy in his age. So what he wrote is
not his personal vision, but a summary of the accepted "tasteful"
playing style in that period.
> The composer's work ends when the score is printed.
And at that point, the performer has the responsibilty to know how to
interprete the printed signs on the page. When we are dealing with
historical music, we can not simply assume that we know what those
signs actually mean unless we study the conventions in notation in the
period in question. A lot of the details were not printed in the
scores, because the musicians knew how to play in the style of the day.
Especially when it comes to 18th century (and before) music, the notes
are often just a rough guideline, outlining the notes, but not much
more.
For instance, a lot of Baroque music and also later music was not
completely written out. The composer often indicated the outlines of
the melody and bass line and just wrote figured bass to define the
harmonies. The figured bass was then played out on a keyboard
instrument or written out by arrangers, specially tailored to the needs
and instrumentations they had available.
Later, it is a fact that can easily be proven by looking at Leopold
Mozart's and many other contemporary people's writings, in different
places and different times, that the music was actually played in a
different way from what the notation said. Or to be more precise, the
notation at that time did not specify a lot of details since they were
not necessary. Sometimes composers indicate articulation markings when
they ARE DIFFERENT to what musicians would have played otherwise in
that place.
In some lucky cases, we actually have scores and parts which were more
richly annotated. Like a lot of material from Bach's Leipzig period
where he actually wrote markings in the parts which would not have been
printed in scores (and weren't subsequently), simply because he was
working with a lot of young musicians there whom he educated in good
performance style. Same about Vivaldi - he was a teacher in an
orphanage for young girls.
To illustrate this, a lot of contemporary music - Jazz, Rock, etc. - is
notated in a similarly "vague way", with just a melody outline, often
written in "straight" rhythmical values not even attempting to "notate
the groove or swing", a few chord symbols, sometimes some middle parts.
And sometimes, the notation is more detailed - when the composer or
arranger wants to give very specific instructions. Playing this music
with a "everything is in the notes" attitude would yield very
unsatisfying, actually grotesque results.
Michael
Dan wrote:
> <<That is actually not entirely correct. Substantial modifications
> continued to be made to all instruments throughout the 20th century,
> and playing styles continued to change too.>>
>
> Yes, you're quite right, but these modifications - plus those you
point
> out about changing from gut to metal e-strings, the increased use of
> string vibrato, the introduction of wind vibrato, the double horn,
> were made in the service of late 19th century music, since this was
> pretty much the focal point of concert life through the 20th century.
> It was a matter of instruments being improved in order to better
handle
> Strauss, Mahler and the like.
Good point. I think it should be made clear that playing styles and
instruments did continue changing a lot during the 20th century. But
you are right that a lot of these changes were made to handle or
develop the playing of late-romantic literature as the main focus of
concert life.
> I abbreviated a tad too much. But, thank
> you for bringing up important information.
>
> <<Like I said in an earlier post, old instruments "tell you" how
they
> want to be played.>>
>
> Missed it before, but this is exactly true. When you play a Baroque
> violin without a chin rest, the phrasing, determined by restrictions
in
> shifting positions, tells you how to phrase. Any violinist-composer
> would have known this and not even had to notate such things. This
is
> lost to a modern violinist who can shift at will.
In some cases, the insights are simply too obvious to ignore. For
instance, the timpani and trumpets in the second half of the 18th
century were often played by the same musicians on the same instruments
that were also used for outdoor military bands. This, trying the
instruments and finally the insight that they are written in the scores
to provide harmonic marking points, not to be played almost inaudibly
soft in the background, forms a very complete and stylistical picture.
I also found it massively interesting to try some bass parts on an
instrument set up like a late 18th/early 19th century Viennes bass.
These instruments had five strings, a relatively low string height,
less string tension and frets on the fingerboard. I immediately
realized that some of the apparently horrendously difficult bass parts
in some works of the period, especially in some Beethoven symphonies
(check out the finale of the 9th) are actually very easy to play on
these instruments. Some of the madly racing scales and arpeggios you
can just play across the strings without even shifting positions. The
instruments and bows were not very well suited for the aggressive
spiccato playing often asked today. They apparently played more from
the string, with a lying bow, producing a smoother, more "carpet-like"
tonal quality. The instrument tells you precisely how that music was
played, and also that those very fast tempi are actually a piece of
cake and sound natural - many later generations said they could simply
not be played properly at the tempi indicated by the metronome
markings.
> << On the other hand, the French bassoon is almost completely gone
and
> not even played by all French orchestras anymore. For instance, the
OdP
> and Bastille play on German bassoons, only the
> Orchestre National and some other French orchestras still use the
> French model.>>
>
> It does have a very loyal kind of cult following in the US however.
It does? Interesting to hear. Who plays that? That reminds me there are
also ensembles or specialized "non-local" musical interest groups
elsewhere, like the "Scottish Vienna horns".
Ian Pace
To add to this, one might find if reading a work of poetry from an earlier
century, the pronunciation, accent and general diction of the time affect
the 'music' of the poetry. Some knowledge of these things can help one
appreciate such things. HIP works in a similar manner. Performances of the
French baroque can be heightened in their impact by a study of conventions
of diction and rhetoric of the time (not to mention theatrical conventions,
etc.), as Christie and others have showed.
Ian
Ian Pace
know how the music sounded in the composer's time, so therefore HIP
performances have no greater claims in this respect than any others, has a
modicum of truth in it, but is disingenuous to a fault. Taruskin resembles
first grade historiography in this respect. His arguments pretty much amount
to 'historical performance research is fraught with problems, can't be shown
to be absolutely objectively true, so therefore it's meaningless and nothing
more than add a spurious historical legitimacy to what is simply one
interpreter's personal preferences'. Of course, the difficulties of
establishing historical conditions in this respect doesn't bother him when
he confidently asserts that some performances are demonstrably
'inauthentic'.
Any half-decent historian knows that historical documents are fragmentary
and partial, open to multiple interpretations, in need of a type of
contextualisation which requires a degree of speculation, etc. Nonetheless,
none other than a few extreme post-modern relativists would conclude that
therefore historical research tells us NOTHING. It's not easy by any means,
and most people embarking upon research into historical performance practice
are very well aware of this fact. I am still quite sure that all the time
and thought spent into researching these things are indeed a productive
force in enabling one to ascertain more clearly the relationship of a work
to historical conventions of performance. Whether one tries to re-situate
such a work within these conventions as an attempt at verisimilitude, or
instead simply absorbs these things so as to add insight to a 'modern'
interpretation, is of course another matter.
I am absolutely confident that Beethoven knew the sound of pianos of
Streicher, Graf, Erard, Broadwood, etc., and not that of a Steinway Model D.
That's as close to objective historical truth as I can imagine.
Ian
Dan Koren
news:370psqF...@individual.net...
>
> To add to this, one might find if reading a work of poetry from an earlier
> century, the pronunciation, accent and general diction of the time affect
> the 'music' of the poetry. Some knowledge of these things can help one
> appreciate such things. HIP works in a similar manner. Performances of the
> French baroque can be heightened in their impact by a study of conventions
> of diction and rhetoric of the time (not to mention theatrical
> conventions, etc.), as Christie and others have showed.
>
We seem to be talking past each other,
as we have done so often in the past.
You missed my point completely. I do
not relate to music as an intellectual
experience. I do not try to understand
it. I do not want to know what went
through the composer's head when (s)he
wrote a work. I do not care how people
listened to the same or other works in
the past, or even in the present. I do
not care whether the performance is
true to the composer's intent, or not.
I do not care what Schenker wrote about
it.
All I care about is what I experience.
I listen to music as an immediate,
physiological experience, right now
and right here, just as I drink or
eat. I do not think about it, and I
do not care what anyone else thinks
about it.
Is this clear now?
dk
Michael
Nobody wants to take that away from you or discuss how you approach
music for your own pleasure, and how you select performances that you
find worth listening to.
But your reflections on the nature of art and performance show that you
do actually think about stuff like that. If you didn't, why did you
share them with us? Why does this topic even interest you to
contribute?
> I listen to music as an immediate,
> physiological experience, right now
> and right here, just as I drink or
> eat. I do not think about it, and I
> do not care what anyone else thinks
> about it.
Again, do what you enjoy doing, but just allow me to ask you this: how
do you select what you eat and drink or listen to? Probably just by
what your taste has told you you liked in the past.
But do you never think about why you didn't like this or that
performance or why you think what you heard doesn't work? Are you never
curious about such questions as how did all that music actually sound
and was played? If a live recording of Beethoven was found (yes, I
know, a somewhat goofy example), wouldn't you want to listen to it, or
would you say "that guy was mostly deaf and had crappy small
instruments, I don't even want to hear that"?
But for many others, there are actually many aspects and layers of
interest in music, in its form, sound matter, performance practice, the
historical frame etcetc. I find it actually very enriching and for me,
there is no contradiction between emotional recepetion and thinking
about music and learning about it. I am mainly looking for interesting
performances to listen to, and I find that knowing stuff acually
heightens, not compromises, the experience.
> Is this clear now?
I think it was clear to everyone all the time! Nobody here is telling
you that you listen to "the wrong performances" or that you have to
share the interest in such matters discussed here.
I think what some of us are trying to say, to take up the food example,
is "nobody is questioning that you like spaghetti with meatballs, but
it might actually be very enjoyable to try something else for a change,
and you can heighten your eating enjoyment by learning more about the
food and what preparation methods there are, so that you can choose
even better what will be tasty for you." Or something like that.
>
> dk
Ian Pace
'The way you type your bile,
The way you sip your coffee (made according to that special recipe),
The way you flame your moose,
No, no! We can't take that away from you!'
(with apologies to George Gershwin)
Ian
Ian Pace
Ian
Kimba W. Lion
>with a view to
>shaking off the ridiculous romantic and "varnished and 'styled as
>accustomed' excesses of the older type of conductors - the Mangelburgs, the
>Fartwranglers and so on" who managed to crucify already established
>war-horses, that most modern conductors and musicians wouldn't dare to get
>away with today*, let alone really want play or record.
This is the opinion that I react to. Mengelberg and Furtwaengler put
personality into their interpretations. It hardly counts as "varnish"
because they didn't become the standard everyone emulated.
One could argue that's true of the HIPs that I don't like, except that
some people want to put forth the idea that HIP is more valid than other
practices.
I guess the disagreement is that I always consider that I listen to
"Furtwaengler's Beethoven" or "Norrington's Beethoven" and don't expect
pure "Beethoven".
Dan
approach
music for your own pleasure, and how you select performances that you
find worth listening to. But your reflections on the nature of art and
performance show that you do actually think about stuff like that. If
you didn't, why did you share them with us? Why does this topic even
interest you to contribute?>>
Well, I agree. I think dk has more than given himself away here.
Having been boxed into corner he is simply taking the only way out - by
throwing a tantrum and trying to undercut an argument by claiming its
irrelevance.
Dan Plante
William Sommerwerck
> "saner" performances of his music in his own time and those
> may not have been any less acceptable unless you think, say,
> Stravinsky was the only valid interpreter of his own
> works. Funny you seem to think that diversity or relativism is
> only true or alive today.
The probability that conductors of Beethoven's era might have played his music
in a more "Classical" style doesn't meant that was what Beethoven wanted.
William Sommerwerck
>> playing piano works by Berg or Webern (I forget which) the way the
>> composer said
>> they were supposed to be played. They came across as real, involving
>> music,
>> rather than chromatic meanderings.
> Are you saying Murray is HIP?
Absolutely -- at least with respect to this music. Anyone who can play this
stuff and make it sound the way the composer said he wanted it to sound -- when
most other artists can't (qv, Glenn Gould), is no "flop."
William Sommerwerck
> closer inspection it is fundamentally flawed. Painting,
> writing, architecture and sculpture are not *PERFORMING*
> arts. They work in an entirely different manner than the
> latter. The artist expresses himself or herself through
> physical objects or written texts that people examine
> and digest on their own terms and make anything they
> want out of the experience.
> Performing arts work through interposers -- actors,
> singers, musicians, dancers, conductors -- who must
> create a credible impression they actually live the
> parts. That is very difficult to accomplish in any
> case, and it becomes even harder if one attempts to
> mimic the performance styles and practives of bygone
> eras. This is one of the reasons so many of the HIP
> performances fail to sound conivincing (at least to
> my ears).
I am 153% in favor of HIP, but like DK, I find many such performances devoid of
what I call "emotional conviction." The problem is not with HIP, per se, but the
conductor's forgetting that style does not automatically translate into
substance.
I don't see why it's impossible for the performers or listeners to make a mental
shift of gears. This has happened with Mozart. Listen, for example to the Fine
Arts Quartet performing Mozart's Clarinet Quintet. It's sufficiently
"romanticized" to sound ludicrous -- and it's a stereo recording from ca. 1960.
It's my belief that if music is performed "correctly" (ouch!), it will "sound
right" to listeners who are not insistent on performance practice that matches
current musical style.
Ivailo Partchev
which could be mine, while the message is exactly the opposite from mine.
It is true that we do not have the same ears, or sensibilities, as 300
years ago. We cannot undo the music that came in the meanwhile. But HIP
is not about conjuring up the lost sound of, say, the 1700's, as Mr.
Sommerwerck erroneously suggests. Nobody has a clue of what that was,
nor is it of foremost relevance. The important is to play the works such
that they sound credible today.
Let us go by example. A couple of days ago, I lavished praise on
Gardiner's Messiah. Why do I like it so much? When playing Handel today,
one has a lot of freedom but the essential should be there. Handel is,
essentially, about sparkle (and a bit about psychology), just as Bach is
about blind faith.
How do we achieve sparkle today?
First, smaller bodies. Handel may have used an orchestra and chorus of
1000, but to my ears a huge body would just smear and smudge. So I like
Gardiner's chorus, which is capable of phrasing like a collective
soloist. Listen just to the Halleluja --- how much phrase in just the
first bar. What a dynamic range built up from nothing to an imposing
climax within 3 minutes. How much muscle and how little fat.
Second, old instruments and less vibrato.
Third, supported singing. Someone like Furio Zanassi (excellent in
Monteverdi) or David Thomas (excellent in nothing) sounds wrong to me in
Handel, because my ears associate sparkle with opera singing. Not
necessarily Melchior, but Anthony Rolfe Johnson is just fine. Supported
singing does not necessarily mean Wagner or verismo, OTOH opera is not a
madrigal, and Handel is opera.
Now, a couple of bad examples, HIP and non-HIP.
I do listen to Richter's Weihnachtoratorium now and then, because of the
soloists. But the Pifa? Today it sounds like music from a Hollywood
film, more or less. A travesty.
At the other extreme, the pseudo-scientific exploits of Rene Jacobs that
culminated in the horribly mannered Nozze. Everything here is taken from
old books and aimed at the kind of reconstruction that Mr. Sommerwerck
objects to. Nothing is alive in that recording except, perhaps, the
conductor's vanity.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
(some time ago)
Ivailo Partchev
Kimba W. Lion
<will...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>You've probably never heard Beethoven performances from the early 20th century.
>Horrible, horrible.
Some were, some weren't. I like quite a number of "historic" recordings.
>> I have been trained to run, not walk, away from "historically informed
>> performances." In the process of second-guessing how things "must" have
>> sounded many generations ago, the performances I've heard show that
>> *music-making* gets lost. They fogot it shouldn't be about reconstructing
>> the past, music must be lived.
>
>You're largely right, but that's the fault of the interpreters, not HIP itself.
Not *necessarily* a fault of HIP but, more than most others, interpreters
in this group seem to need to have the varnish of self-importance stripped
away.
Kimba W. Lion
>
>You have missed little, if you weren't interested in a bunch of
>untalented crooks selling their pauper shtick as the second coming.
It is that "second coming" attitude that I've basically been arguing
against. If people like the performances that fall into this genre, that's
fine, but no one will ever convince me it's inherently a more "valid" way
to perform the music.
And (for one example) elsewhere I've said that Norrington's Symphonie
Fantastique had some interesting aspects to it, but I had a difficult time
staying awake to the end.
Kimba W. Lion
>Or you may risk missing a lot by not listening to people like
>Harnoncourt, who has studied, played and conducted his way through
>massive portions of the musical repertoire beginning in the Renaissance
>age over half a century now. There is probably no one on the planet
>right now who knows more about the repertoire that he performes than
>he, from a musicological and practical performer point of view.
Harnoncourt's Messiah put me off the work for life; I have not been able
to get back "into" it since I listened to his.
xys...@hotmail.com
able to get back "into" it since I listened to his.>
LOL ! Unlike the qualified HIP morticians of the day, even today's
not-so-genial conductors like Abbado or Rattle or Jansons are able to
project at least some of the inherent power of seduction good music
should exhibit and DK was alluding to.
It's kinda funny how what Harno-Norry-Herre-etcy would allegedly *know
about* the repertoire they are playing becomes the nodal point of
contention. Imagine you would have to choose between exploring the joys
of you-know-what with
Dr. Matilda Else Gertrud Schmickelfuentengrubersgartensflick, a
one-eyed, smelly, moustached & thrombotic Oberleutnant with, on her
side, a Heidelberg doctorate in the history of various Kamasutra
manuscripts
OR with Julia Roberts.
Now there would be a tough one! For some.
regards,
SG (-:
Albert Edelman
> about* the repertoire they are playing becomes the nodal point of
> contention. Imagine you would have to choose between exploring the joys
> of you-know-what with
Dangerously said, but I think your comparison is not only a bit wrong, it's
completely wrong. The more you know, the more you can say about something
and the same goes for music of course. A couple of years ago, I could have
sung a piece by Rameau adequately, but now I studied his music and it's
context more closely, I might be able to convey a bit of what the composer
meant to convey when he wrote his music. In the same manner:
Harno-Norry-Herre have been reading more about the stuff they're doing than
most people, and thereby qualify for better/more interesting performances.
And if we're talking about sex: I've not really met natural talents that
know what to do instantly. Also here: practice and study! Right, case closed
:-)
Johannes Roehl
Who says that one couldn't have both?
;-)
Ever seen a picture of HIP conductrix Emanuelle Haim?
Johannes
Raymond Hall
news:8ulm0111ifug8go4d...@4ax.com...
But even if you are a devout WK or WM fan, then their 'personalities' were
layered on top of varnish? Nicht war? If one indulges in using Beeswax, on
top of French Polish, then the furniture begins to look really grubby.
Ray H
Taree
xys...@hotmail.com
> Ever seen a picture of HIP conductrix Emanuelle Haim?
> Johannes
Er, can't remember. Did she, er, perform in "Emanuelle 6" ?
regards,
SG ( :
xys...@hotmail.com
Fantastique had some interesting aspects to it, but I had a difficult
time
staying awake to the end."
You'll have to admit it takes a huge amount of a, well, special type of
talent to be able to put somebody to sleep with the Fantastique.
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
Besides Samir's choices are biased. A more appropriate example would be:
HIP: Diana
Non-HIP: Camilla.
ad
Michael
Albert Edelman wrote:
> > It's kinda funny how what Harno-Norry-Herre-etcy would allegedly
*know
> > about* the repertoire they are playing becomes the nodal point of
> > contention. Imagine you would have to choose between exploring the
joys
> > of you-know-what with
>
> Dangerously said, but I think your comparison is not only a bit
wrong, it's
> completely wrong.
It's not just completely wrong, it's also completely idiotic. We are
not talking about people who have spent many years reading up on stuff
and getting degrees for things they are you really suitable for, we are
talking about musical personalities who are very competent performers
and have spent a lot of time exploring that area of music.
Of course, nobody "has" to listen to period performances. But I find
the idea of ignoring the study of historical performance practice as
such because it is "academic" completely...beyond idiotic. After all,
we are talking about historical music here.
Michael
Apparently you have a hard time separating the music from the
interpretation. Even if you didn't like H's reading of it, it shouldn't
be so difficult for you to find other interpretations which let you
back "into" the music. Unless of course it is the music which you don't
like.
I don't quite understand what that has to do with H's experience and
competence though.
I fall asleep when I watch football while a lot of other people are
really "into" it. It is my priviledge to be bored by the game, just as
it is your priviledge to be bored or put off by any musical
interpretation. But in my mind, I am not very qualified to judge the
players because of that.
You complained about the attitudes of some HIP performers. I think that
is completely irrelevant. I am interested in the musical substance, not
how people come across to me. Norrington strikes me as really arrogant
too, but I don't care how he looks or talks. Harnoncourt BTW is a very
nice and modest man who doesn't make any absolute claims but in fact
points out all the time how he sees himself as being on a journey
rather than having found the holy grail. In your place, it would simply
make me think why he is so respected by audiences and a lot of great
musicians who work with him. Maybe if you review your own attitude, it
might open you to enrichening musical experiences.
William Sommerwerck
> to get back "into" it since I listened to his.
Try the Gardiner. It might restore your faith.
xys...@hotmail.com
Schaffer wrote:
> Of course, nobody "has" to listen to period performances. But I find
> the idea of ignoring the study of historical performance practice as
> such because it is "academic" completely...beyond idiotic. After all,
> we are talking about historical music here.
It would be idiotic indeed if anybody would have claimed anything like
the idiocy that Schaffer is claiming. But then that Schaffer is a
patented idiot himself is a matter of record, so why wondering he can't
go beyond kindergarten dichotomies such as EITHER ignoring study of
historical performance practice OR finding study of historical
performance practice as the goal of the performer. All I have always
asserted was that historical research can enrich talent where there is
any (and neither Furtwangler nor the other conductors of his
generations were ignoramuses waiting for Schaffer or for Harnoncourt to
teach them how to dot the rightnote) but making a fetish out of
historical research per se goes against the goal of a performing art.
These simple things are too complicated, though, for a simpleton with
no furniture in his head.
regards,
SG
Michael
Your post did indeed make extremely sharp distinctions between "HIP
morticians" on the one and somehow inspired people on the other. You
also tried to discredit the academic study of performance practice in
general with your very colorful example of the smelly one-eyed lady.
Nobody waited for me to teach. But the music world in general has
indeed profited massively from the work of Mr Harnoncourt. Among the
great interpreters of the last and this beginning century, there is
probably not a single one who has contributed more to our rethinking
and rediscovering of the repertoire.
xys...@hotmail.com
> Dangerously said, but I think your comparison is not only a bit
wrong, it's
> completely wrong. The more you know, the more you can say about
something
> and the same goes for music of course. A couple of years ago, I could
have
> sung a piece by Rameau adequately, but now I studied his music and
it's
> context more closely, I might be able to convey a bit of what the
composer
> meant to convey when he wrote his music.
Good for you, Albert (-:. Just don't you believe that studying a
variety of musical disciplines in depth or trying to enhance
intellectually one's - essential! - innate musical gifts was discovered
in 1960. Also, performance practice issues, while important (and
they've been always important in a performer's equipment, not starting
with Norrington) are only a small part of what a musician should study.
There's no sheer coincidence that the interpreters who also composed,
even when some of their compositions did not attain the notoriety of
their activity qua interpreters, seem to penetrate music more in depth
than an imaginationless bandmaster who thinks that by inflicting a
burpy crescendo and a descrescendo on every long note some kind of
communing with the True Spirit of the composer has been firstly
attained.
> Harno-Norry-Herre have been reading more about the stuff they're
doing than
> most people, and thereby qualify for better/more interesting
performances.
Oh, but it does not follow. An actor playing Hamlet should, no doubt,
not rely on *inspiration alone* while giving life to his character.
"Reading more stuff" surely is of a nature to help a theatrical
performance. But from this to "the actor who read more plays a
better/more interesting Hamlet" is a long way. Reading? Sure. Have I
ever expressed an anti-intellectual position? But reading what, how
much, absorbing it to what degree, rendering it relevant to the living
performing act to what extent?
> And if we're talking about sex: I've not really met natural talents
that
> know what to do instantly. Also here: practice and study! :-)
I'll defer to your expertise in all fields, Master Albert. Just
remember: when you'll finally become the all-knowing expert, there
might be something essential missing there in the equation, something
which you may have had in the beginning, when you were an unknowing
young lad. (I am talking about music, of course!! (-:)
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
>Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but it misses the point I'm trying
>to get at. Disregarding for a moment the personal aspect of
>interpretation, but just sound object. Don't you think that it's
>pretty reasonable to assume that when Mozart wrote a work, the notes he
>wrote down were heard in his head as representing the sound and
>articulation of the instruments he knew, not ones that were invented
>for a completely different kind of music a century later? And, in
>doing so, don't you think he scored his works to take advantage of the
>the particular characteristics of the instruments, exploiting those
>characteristics to create a particular sonority? Furthermore, being a
>violinist and violist, don't you think he knew the traditions in which
>certain kinds of writing would be played? And, if one is in doubt
>about what that means one only has to look at his father's violin
>manual. I'm sure he knew those aspects about all orchestral
>instruments. Things you do, things you don't do when playing such and
>such a passage.
I'm sure that's all true. But does it follow (I don't mean to suggest that you
believe this) that all of those thoughts are part of what the music really is,
so that what certain "romantics" did interpretatively should be considered
"varnish"?
Simon
Simon Roberts
>Missed it before, but this is exactly true. When you play a Baroque
>violin without a chin rest, the phrasing, determined by restrictions in
>shifting positions, tells you how to phrase.
Do you mean "tells you how long a phrase is"? Surely it doesn't tell you where
to put the emphasis, if any, how/where/when to do rubato and to what extent,
when and by how much to vary the volume, when to vary vibrato, if any, etc., all
of which are surely part of "how to phrase."
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> But the music world in general has indeed profited massively from the
> work of Mr Harnoncourt. Among the great interpreters of the last and
> this beginning century, there is probably not a single one who has
> contributed more to our rethinking and rediscovering of the repertoire.
But Samir is interested in rediscovery only if what's being discovered is
some long-lost recording of Furtwängler and the SS Symphony Orchestra
(along with the Gestapo Choir) conducting Wagner's toilet paper . . .
Matty
Simon Roberts
>The point that I think Simon made, citing Taruskin, that really we can never
>know how the music sounded in the composer's time, so therefore HIP
>performances have no greater claims in this respect than any others, has a
>modicum of truth in it, but is disingenuous to a fault.
That was *not* my point, and I don't think it's his. There's more than a little
evidence, which he and others cite, that the sort of interpretative style
demonstrated by Gardiner is less "old" than "modern"; and if that's true, using
Gardiner as an example of what happens when you strip off the varnish is
misleading. There is, after all, a rather wide range of HIP styles which sound
quite a bit different from Gardiner's....
>I am absolutely confident that Beethoven knew the sound of pianos of
>Streicher, Graf, Erard, Broadwood, etc., and not that of a Steinway Model D.
>That's as close to objective historical truth as I can imagine.
Indeed. But what does it prove?
Simon
Michael
Absolutely. Playing style is an integral part of any kind of music. The
fact that it is not written out because the contemporary musicians
didn't need all the info to be right there on the page doesn't change
that at all.
When Mozart composed and wrote for a specific instrument, it is very
likely that the color and characteristics of the instrument he imagined
were those of his day, not ours.
Just get his father's book. You will be blown away by some stuff he
wrote.
Still, that does not discount "later" playing styles as long as they
recast the music in a coherent way. I look at "romantic"
interpretations somehow as "remakes" or "arrangements", kind of like
listening to Jazz standards in a Henry Mancini type of arrangement.
That can be nice too.
Raymond Hall
news:19ehz50alxqpc$.c25udawdd4a5.dlg@40tude.net...
With the Fuhrer and Himmler in the audience for good measure. Adds to the
AMBIENCE of the occasion and naturally enhances the performance.
<g>
Ray H
Taree
Simon Roberts
>
>I am 153% in favor of HIP, but like DK, I find many such performances devoid of
>what I call "emotional conviction." The problem is not with HIP, per se, but the
>conductor's forgetting that style does not automatically translate into
>substance.
Right. *That* problem has nothing to do with HIP and is not confined to it.
There are rafts of non-HIP musicians out there with nothing resembling
"emotional conviction" (unless a certain elegant reserve qualifies as an
emotion).
Simon
Simon Roberts
>
>> But our ears don't live in Beethoven's time. IOW, we can't help but
>> appreciate the music in a different way than people did 200 years ago.
>> So why attempt to play it that way?
>
>Because it makes muck more sense than applying _current_ performance practices.
>
>You've probably never heard Beethoven performances from the early 20th century.
>Horrible, horrible.
How early? Does Weingartner count? His style seems merely rather cool and bland
to me, certainly not "horrible". Pre-WWII Beethoven 5s by Furtwangler and
Abendroth impressed me quite a lot the last time I tried them.
Simon
Michael
It does answer some of these questions. The kind of tonal color and
variations you can make, what bowings produce what kind of effect, what
dynamic range you have at your disposition, things like these. It does
not answer all your qeustions, and neither does studying historical
texts and notation. But then it apparently was seen as extremely
important in a good performance to introduce variation of these
parameters to make the music lively, to make it speak. So performances
of the same piece in the same period may have sounded very different
from each other.
The "traditional" way that was taught in music schools for a long time
and still largely is taught today, is "play exactly what is written in
the music". That has become progressively more important during the
19th century with the development of more individual composition
styles. When looking at music from earlier ages, it was found that
there is very little written in there except for the most basic
information. It was concluded that that meant that all that music had
to be played with each note exactly the same, with very little dynamic
and tonal variation, articulation and phrasing. The myth of the
invariably serene character of classical music was born and it was
considered wrong and "un-Mozartish" to introduce such variations and
dramatic tonal effects.
When you open Leopold's book, it says quite explicitly that playing a
scal with each note exactly the same is nothing but "tasteless and
unmusical" and he proceeds to give examples of what you can do. Not
what you have to do - there are no absolute rules -, but examples. So,
while it does not tell us exactly how to play, it tells us very
explicitly that playing "just" the written notes is completely
unacceptable.
Then when you examine the instruments of the day, you find that they
were apparently not made for that balmy effectlessness. One such
discovery, to cite just one extreme example, was Harnoncourt's
discovery that the percussion used in "Die Entführung aus dem Serail"
was not the nice and smooth percussion we now have, but basically tools
of sonic terror which made an enormous noise.
> Simon
xys...@hotmail.com
<<But Samir is interested in rediscovery only if what's being
discovered is
some long-lost recording of Furtwängler and the SS Symphony Orchestra
(along with the Gestapo Choir) conducting Wagner's toilet paper . . .
Matty>>
What can one say to such "hilarious" hyperbole? The quality of your
sense of humor has improved considerably with the passing of time.
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
> What can one say to such "hilarious" hyperbole? The quality of your
> sense of humor has improved considerably with the passing of time.
I try.
Matty