# Where do you part ways with HIP?



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

HIP is now mainstream and widely accepted. But do you go all the way with HIP? I don't. I prefer almost everything after Bach on modern instruments, and I vastly prefer Bach's solo keyboard works on modern piano. I also wish HIP groups didn't use countertenors everywhere - I prefer female altos.

How far do you go with HIP? I have no agenda here, I'm just curious.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I love both HIP and non-HIP so anything goes for me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I don't! Never! I want to hear music performed as close to the composers' intentions as possible.

Always Bach on harpsichord and Baroque Violin. Mozart and Haydn on period instruments and Beethoven keyboard sonatas on Broadwood fortepiano replicas.

It goes without saying that pitch should be adjusted lower to what Bach, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven would be accustomed to.

If these composers could ever encounter modern performances of their music, they would be really PO'd at the improper pitches being employed. I wouldn't want to be around to witness THOSE tantrums!!


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

I prefer music until about Mozart on period instruments, later than that, anything goes. I prefer Baroque on harpischord and like both piano and fortepiano on Classical era.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I very much like HIP - even into the nineteenth century - I liked Norrington's _Symphony fantastique_ very much and thought the different timbre he got from the orchestra to be illuminating

But I also like Hewitt's playing of Bach on a modern piano


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I like HIP - but I *don't mind* countertenors. I still find the sound of their voices a bit strange, but some I find more engaging than others. In this 'He shall feed His flock', for example, I absolutely love the voice of Andreas Scholl. 





On the other hand, I can enjoy baroque music even when it isn't HIP.

But neither of these opinions makes me 'part ways' with HIP exactly.
Interesting thread - to me, anything about baroque and/or HIP is interesting, and oh, it *does* make a refreshing change!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

It's all good -re the instruments. Some of the playing not so much.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I beg to differ. HIP performance technique is currently "astonishingly fine" IMHO.

Just play any Harnoncourt performance from the 1970's and compare it to a recent HIP performance. Astonishing progress has been made in mastering these difficult instruments.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

The further back you go the more important HIP becomes. Partly because of the instruments and partly because of the difficulties of reading the music. You can see this even in the (late) 19th century when they were producing edition of the Fitzwilliam Virginal book. I don't know about HIP much later than Bach except for some of the English like Avison simply because I don't listen to much modern music (post 1800).

I certainly prefer harpsichord because when you use a piano you have to adapt to match the sort of effects you would get on a harpsichord. In other cases, you have to worry about temperaments - Buxtehude is a classic example since some of his pieces only "work" for specific temperament. Handel seems to have worked with castrati (counter tenors) but when he couldn't get them e.g. the Dublin Messiah, he would transpose down for Susannah Cibber or the London première where he adapted the music for his singers. For me counter tenors seem a good choice - better than the other option.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Ukko said:


> It's all good -re the instruments. *Some of the playing not so much*.


I shudder to challenge such an erudite poster, but .... really? I know there are some flaky bits of singing in the Teldec Bach (along with an abundance of excellent playing and signing) but do you have any specific pieces in mind that were recorded *this* century?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Bring it on. Anything goes: HIP, non-HIP, countertenors, altos, etc.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I used to be hard-core HIP, but I'm loosening up. I draw the line with Renaissance singers using a lot of vibrato and Baroque orchestras using a lot of vibrato. I strongly dislike that.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I like HIPP, but not when they play so fast that the music doesn't have a chance to breathe


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Using countertenors as substitutes for castrati is not truly HIP. It's merely an expedient way of having a high voice in a male body, which is theatrically desirable but doesn't necessarily reproduce the sound of a castrato soprano or alto. My guess is that no countertenor will ever sound much like Farinelli. I don't object to countertenors in principle, and there are more and more around who really sing well, but I'm for giving soprano and alto parts to whoever can sing them best, male or female. Usually, to my ear, this means female.

In general, I enjoy music of the eighteenth century and earlier on period instruments, but don't object to modern instruments and sometimes prefer them; I find Mozart more beautiful on a modern piano. In Bach's keyboard works the actual timbre of the intrument is largely irrelevant to the musical substance, and when we consider the freedom with which Baroque and even Classical composers transcribed music for various instruments with little or no alteration of the notes we see the fallacy of assuming that music of those periods is wedded to particular instrumental timbres. Bach's harpsichord works are not harpsichord music at all in the sense that Liszt's piano works are piano music. With orchestral works there would be more correspondence between the notes chosen and the instruments that play them, but even here it was often presumed that instrumental forces might be different at different performances, depending on what players were available. If three or four oboists were available in London for a performance of _Messiah_, they might double the violin parts; if a theorbo was available, it might accompany recitatives. Insistence on specific instruments in early music is thus often not truly "authentic." The music remains itself regardless, and we should not in general hesitate to play it on the instruments we ourselves play or have at hand.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I don't! Never! I want to hear music performed as close to the composers' intentions as possible.
> 
> Always Bach on harpsichord and Baroque Violin. Mozart and Haydn on period instruments and Beethoven keyboard sonatas on Broadwood fortepiano replicas.
> 
> ...


Ironically I don't always want to hear the piece as the composer intended. In fact, having appreciated jazz, there are times when I like when the performer goes off the deep end. That is what is called creative interpretation.

Kudos to Glenn Gould for aiding in this process.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I don't draw the line at all.

I also think it's important to know where we've come from musically, so I'm perfectly ok with non-HIP as well. Ultimately, I'm more concerned with the quality of a performance than historical authenticity, although the latter certainly isn't a bad thing. The question is, whether HIP or not, is it done well?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Taggart said:


> The further back you go the more important HIP becomes. Partly because of the instruments and partly because of the difficulties of reading the music. You can see this even in the (late) 19th century when they were producing edition of the Fitzwilliam Virginal book. I don't know about HIP much later than Bach except for some of the English like Avison simply because I don't listen to much modern music (post 1800).
> 
> I certainly prefer harpsichord because when you use a piano you have to adapt to match the sort of effects you would get on a harpsichord. In other cases, you have to worry about temperaments - Buxtehude is a classic example since some of his pieces only "work" for specific temperament. Handel seems to have worked with castrati (counter tenors) but when he couldn't get them e.g. the Dublin Messiah, he would transpose down for Susannah Cibber or the London première where he adapted the music for his singers. For me counter tenors seem a good choice - better than the other option.


The best non-HIP performance I have seen lately is Catrin Fitch playing the Goldberg Variations on a harp.

Not HIP but awesome still.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

albertfallickwang said:


> The best non-HIP performance I have seen lately is Catrin Fitch playing the Goldberg Variations on a harp.
> 
> Not HIP but awesome still.


This is very cool!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I shudder to challenge such an erudite poster, but .... really? I know there are some flaky bits of singing in the Teldec Bach (along with an abundance of excellent playing and signing) but do you have any specific pieces in mind that were recorded *this* century?


Most of my recordings were made in the 20th C. They did not disappear when the century changed. I occasionally take the long view.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

My one problem is with live HIP performances. The baroque double reeds are so soft you never hear them, I was at a HIP performance of a concerto for oboe and lute. The lute was drowning out the oboe. You could not hear the oboe player.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have a Chinese friend. Sometimes we go out to a Chinese restaurant and I will order Pan Fried Noodle with Shrimp and Scallops. "That's not traditional "real" Chinese" he will insist. There have been times that he has ordered traditional "real" Chinese and I have found that I am really not thrilled with certain dishes. I have told him I don't care if something is traditional; I just want it to taste good.

I feel the same about Historically Informed Performances. There are HIP recordings that I truly love... and there are others that I don't. Honestly, I prefer Bach's solo keyboard works on piano (or on clavichord ala Ralph Kirkpatrick). I like Andreas Staier's Goldberg Variations... but quite honestly I prefer the performances by Glenn Gould, Murray Perahia, and numerous others on piano. There are performances of Mozart's piano concertos that I love on both modern piano and piano-forte... but I'm not the least interested in Beethoven on piano-forte. I love the HIP performances of Bach by John Eliot Gardiner and Jordi Savall... but I also love less-than-HIP performances by Karl Richter and Otto Klemperer. Ultimately, it simply needs to sound good to me. Sometimes I find HIP recordings sound better. Sometimes I prefer certain "old school" performances. Often I find I like certain performances from either end of the spectrum and feel they each reveal different aspects of the composer/composition.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have a Chinese friend. Sometimes we go out to a Chinese restaurant and I will order Pan Fried Noodle with Shrimp and Scallops. "That's not traditional "real" Chinese" he will insist. There have been times that he has ordered traditional "real" Chinese and I have found that I am really not thrilled with certain dishes. I have told him I don't care if something is traditional; I just want it to taste good.
> 
> I feel the same about Historically Informed Performances. There are HIP recordings that I truly love... and there are others that I don't. Honestly, I prefer Bach's solo keyboard works on piano (or on clavichord ala Ralph Kirkpatrick). I like Andreas Staier's Goldberg Variations... but quite honestly I prefer the performances by Glenn Gould, Murray Perahia, and numerous others on piano. There are performances of Mozart's piano concertos that I love on both modern piano and piano-forte... but I'm not the least interested in Beethoven on piano-forte. I love the HIP performances of Bach by John Eliot Gardiner and Jordi Savall... but I also love less-than-HIP performances by Karl Richter and Otto Klemperer. Ultimately, it simply needs to sound good to me. Sometimes I find HIP recordings sound better. Sometimes I prefer certain "old school" performances. Often I find I like certain performances from either end of the spectrum and feel they each reveal different aspects of the composer/composition.


I'm blushing.

One should be derided shamelessly for having taste- as well as pitied for having a complete anaesthesia for tastelessness.

As if there can be an aesthetic hierarchy.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I appreciate HIP as it often adds vigor to a performance of what had become stodgy and ponderous, but it's not the be all, end all. I got into classical via Wendy Carlos' synthesizer realizations. It doesn't get less HIP than that, although it was quite hip at the time. 

I've also enjoyed Scarlatti on an accordion and Bach on a ukelele. While I enjoy the lacy texture a harpsichord can bring in its role of continuo, I prefer the less harsh piano for baroque solo keyboard works. And while it may be interesting and informative to hear a HIP orchestral performance of a Beethoven symphony, there's a lot to be said for the overblown huge sound of Mahler sized orchestra playing the 9th.

So, it's all mixed up, no rhyme or reason. I like whatever I like, but prefer paper for drawing lines.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

I'm a hardcore HIP'ster. I even have the Faure cello sonatas on period instruments. I also adore the Brahms violin sonatas using period instruments (in particular, the Streicher fortepiano built in 1870 in the recording I own). 

I pretty much always prefer to hear music of earlier times as close as possible to the sounds the composer and first listeners would have expected. For pre-1825 music especially, it just sounds wrong when played on modern instruments and/or in modern style. The performance might be brilliant in certain ways but it always still sounds wrong to my ears.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

My experience of HIP is rather limited to the orchestral works of Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn. I find these refreshing and have greatly enjoyed the difference in sound and performance with the added clarity between the orchestral parts. 
When I listen to Bach on the harpsichord I just don't get the same pleasure and prefer the sound of the piano (apologies to hpowders for this)


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

At countertenors
uuugggghhh


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2015)

The assumption seems to be that composers of the past were wholly satisfied with the capabilities of the contemporary instruments and would not have wanted anyone to do anything 'modern' with their compositions. I wonder whether any of those accustomed to the harpsichord were longing for piano technology to advance, and would have embraced the instruments of today? I see no justification for insisting that because "that is what it would have sounded like in their day", the only "authentic" performance must be as close as possible to a contemporary one.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

hpowders said:


> If these composers could ever encounter modern performances of their music, they would be really PO'd at the improper pitches being employed. I wouldn't want to be around to witness THOSE tantrums!!


Just because it was the performance practice of their time doesn't mean they wouldn't be fine with modern performance practice.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

For me it's always been about whether it sounds good, not whether it sounds "correct".
My first exposure to HIP made the music sound better, so I've always been on board with it. For any pre-classical music I'll automatically gravitate toward HIP. But I'm happy to hear Baroque keyboard music on a piano - in fact I tend to prefer my Bach that way.
Countertenors are wonderful!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I see no reasons why You can't have the cake and eat it!







I've learned a million things from both way's of coming to the music, if the performance is good it does not matter what ideological stance the performers have!

/ptr


----------



## tempo (Nov 8, 2012)

I went through a phase of being obsessed with HIP, but these days I'm more relaxed on the subject.

There are different degrees of HIP. There's Chailly HIP, where you use faster tempi with less vibrato, but modern instruments. Then there's Mackerras HIP, where you do the above but with period brass thrown into the mix. Then there's van Immerseel or de Vriend HIP, where you do the above but with a full period instrument ensemble. 

I've noticed lately that some recent HIP performances are much more relaxed on the issue of tempi, however.

HIP performances, to me, often feel very 'right', but they don't always bring out as much feeling in the work as non-HIP performances.

The one area of HIP that's never appealed to me is the use of period piano.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Most of my recordings were made in the 20th C. They did not disappear when the century changed. I occasionally take the long view.


its a neat sidestep but ... we both agree there were some dodgy recordings in the earlier days of HIP but I think that performance practice for HIP has improved an awful lot since the early days and I doubt that accusations of poor HIP recordings hold water with *recent* releases. :tiphat:


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> My one problem is with live HIP performances. The baroque double reeds are so soft you never hear them, I was at a HIP performance of a concerto for oboe and lute. The lute was drowning out the oboe. You could not hear the oboe player.


Isn't that down to poor ensemble playing rather than with HIP or the instrument?

If the piece were written for oboe and lute, it would be safe to assume that it is possible to play it together in balance, surely?


----------



## tempo (Nov 8, 2012)

I love the way HIP has freed the adagio and the andante from their previously absurdly slow tempos. This has been the greatest achievement of HIP.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

^^^ and freed oratorio and cantata from having to have a cast of thousands - I love the clarity of texture from some scaled down choirs (and orchestras too, for that matter)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> *The assumption seems to be that composers of the past were wholly satisfied with the capabilities of the contemporary instruments *and would not have wanted anyone to do anything 'modern' with their compositions. *I wonder whether any of those accustomed to the harpsichord were longing for piano technology to advance,* and would have embraced the instruments of today? I see no justification for insisting that because "that is what it would have sounded like in their day", the only "authentic" performance must be as close as possible to a contemporary one.


I'm with you in your speculation. The notion that composers of the Baroque era might have been dissatisfied with the harpsichord is pooh-poohed by HIP purists, but I've always found it not only completely thinkable but virtually certain. The harpsichord is severely limited in dynamic control: it has, essentially, none, while other instruments, and the human voice, use dynamics as a principle tool of expression. Bach is known to have preferred the clavichord because the player has some control over volume and articulation; he was also interested in the fortepianos which were new in his day and were very soon to supplant their predecessor in popularity. The harpsichord, however characteristic its sound of a certain era of music, and however much we may like that sound in its context, is a monotonously clattering machine. I don't believe for a minute that its limitations were not perceived and regretted by composers of the time, and that Handel and company would not have been stunned and delighted by the extraordinary expressive capabilities of the modern piano. 18th century composers were nothing if not adaptable and resourceful, and its wrong to think that they were wedded to the technologies, or even the specific sounds, of the particular instruments they were forced to use.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Isn't that down to poor ensemble playing rather than with HIP or the instrument?
> 
> If the piece were written for oboe and lute, it would be safe to assume that it is possible to play it together in balance, surely?


I am sorry. Did I give the impression that it was the only HIP I ever attended? I have been to many. I just used that one as an example. There was one were the balance was good. I think that it was because it was a performance in a small venue.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I'm with you in your speculation. The notion that composers of the Baroque era might have been dissatisfied with the harpsichord is pooh-poohed by HIP purists, but I've always found it not only completely thinkable but virtually certain. The harpsichord is severely limited in dynamic control: it has, essentially, none, while other instruments, and the human voice, use dynamics as a principle tool of expression. Bach is known to have preferred the clavichord because the player has some control over volume and articulation; he was also interested in the fortepianos which were new in his day and were very soon to supplant their predecessor in popularity. The harpsichord, however characteristic its sound of a certain era of music, and however much we may like that sound in its context, is a monotonously clattering machine. I don't believe for a minute that its limitations were not perceived and regretted by composers of the time, and that Handel and company would not have been stunned and delighted by the extraordinary expressive capabilities of the modern piano. 18th century composers were nothing if not adaptable and resourceful, and its wrong to think that they were wedded to the technologies, or even the specific sounds, of the particular instruments they were forced to use.


Whether they were satisfied or not, they went to concert with the instruments they had, not the instruments they wanted to have. If we want to hear what they created, we want to hear those instruments.

I'm not a purist about almost anything, and that is important to me. Playing Bach on a piano is as welcome to me as playing Bach on a melotron - if anyone thinks it sounds good, I say: Do it.

But at least as an intellectual enterprise it is interesting to try to recreate as nearly as possible the sound it might've had once upon a time.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

While I have no trouble believing that Handel and Bach, et. al., would have loved the capabilities and sound of the modern piano, the keyboard music they produced did not envision and was not composed to exploit that sound and those capabilities. All the music they wrote was specifically designed to most perfectly exploit the instrumental capabilities of the instruments they spent their lives working with. 

It's absurd to even speculate about what music they would have produced for a modern Steinway grand piano but you can rest assured they would have designed it to take advantage of its distinctive qualities and that it would not be the keyboard music they left us.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

From a theoretical point of view, I'm going with HIP postulates all the way.

If Bach wrote a piece for a harpsichord, and you use a harpsichord to play that piece, that's the best you can do. It's not rocket science. Simple common sense.

Of course, if Bach would have been aware of the possibilities of a modern piano, or a synthesizer, or a computer,... he might have written his music in a different way, but he was not. There can't be nothing in a Bach's score that was written considering the musical capabilities of an instrument that he was not aware of. So, if a want to "understand" Bach's music as much as possible, I need to use a harpsichord.

When I'm not marching along with HIP "fundamentalists" is in their conviction that playing a Bach harpsichord concerto in a harpsichord is the *only* way to go ahead. I do think it's the *best* way, but there can be interesting performances on a piano, or other modern instrument. I will judge these performances on their own musical merit (to my ears ), even if from starters it will be more difficult that I will like them, than with a HIP performance. And, of course, in many cases the period intruments are just not available, and you need to go ahead with modern ones, irrespective of your intentions or convictions.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I sometimes agree with HIP in practice, but I always disagree with it in theory.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I can tolerate anything except amphetamine-induced tempi and toy pianos.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Headphone Hermit said:


> its a neat sidestep but ... we both agree there were some dodgy recordings in the earlier days of HIP but I think that performance practice for HIP has improved an awful lot since the early days and I doubt that accusations of poor HIP recordings hold water with *recent* releases. :tiphat:


It mostly doesn't. There are also some phenomena from the early days of HIP on Baroque instruments I never understood. My recordings of Collegium Aureum never revealed intonation problems to me; some 'thin' ensemble, but not 'off' ensemble. I have received various explanations, including accusations of 'cheating' (using instruments that were converted from Baroque early in the 19th C., for instance). My guess was 'probably not', because -aside from the ethical standpoint - the Collegium Aureum recordings always exhibited a dearth of projection from the individual string sections that I attributed to the authenticity of their instruments.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

20centrfuge said:


> Just because it was the performance practice of their time doesn't mean they wouldn't be fine with modern performance practice.


They were composing in clearly defined keys. Today's C Major is not Beethoven's or Haydn's or Mozart's C Major.
Musical keys have become a bit "sharper" over the centuries.

I wouldn't want to be around if Beethoven was resurrected and heard his Pastoral in a modern performance beginning not in the F Major he was expecting, assuming he could actually hear it. I don't think he would have been a happy camper.

Instead I would take him to a HIP performance of it where he and I could both smile. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2015)

I'm generally in favor of HIP, however I cannot bear the sound of a solo harpsichord. So rather than miss out on those amazing works by Bach, I listen to them on piano.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I am opposed to using period instruments. Besides hating the sound of the harpsichord and period string instruments, it is not sensible to ask musicians to craft or order specially made instruments to perform a piece.

Period performance practices are good background for performers, no matter how old the piece is. They should at least be considered, even if a different approach is eventually chosen.

Music is performed with the materials available in the modern time and for modern ears. I'm of the mind that the music should adapt to fit the times and not vice versa. Some music may fall in and out of favor for periods of time, and that is okay.


----------



## cjvinthechair (Aug 6, 2012)

Thank you to everyone for a very educational thread !

Not ashamed to admit I'd never even heard the term HIP until reading it in the title post, & had to look it up on Wikipedia - and that's after listening to thousands of hours of music, & spending a fair bit of time on sites such as this.

Oh, do hope after reading this you didn't expect some newly informed opinion ? Sorry - shall (I hope !) listen to thousands more hours music and be quite happy to mix and match styles of recording as I've always done. Isn't that part of the joy of music - nothing's so definitive that it can't be investigated from another angle ?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Whether they were satisfied or not, they went to concert with the instruments they had, not the instruments they wanted to have. If we want to hear what they created, we want to hear those instruments.

I couldn't care less how they went to concert. Bach, Beethoven, etc... were quite often limited to rather mediocre musicians. In earlier days the audiences milled about talking, drinking, and eating. The Italians and English especially employed castrati. Bach was largely limited to choirboys while envying other German composers in the larger urban settings who had access to the best female operatic singers. I doubt the singers involved in most of Schubert's small gatherings were anywhere near on par with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau or Elizabeth Schwarzkopf. The notion that modern instruments "sound wrong" (how does one know what sounds "right"?) seems to have far more to do with an obsession with history and historical "accuracy" than with aesthetics or artistic merit.

By the way... I love certain recordings that employ choirboys (I immediately think of the 1751 version of Messiah conducted by Higginbottom), and I love a good many performances by countertenors... but I also greatly admire the far from HIP recordings of The Anonymous Four.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I cannot bear the sound of a solo harpsichord. So rather than miss out on those amazing works by Bach, I listen to them on piano.

This doesn't strike me as a great sacrifice on your part considering the quality of the performers and performances available on piano.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I part ways with *HIP* or *Modern* treatment, when (of recordings available) one sounds better for that work to me.:tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

A beautiful and truly non HIP recording of Bach's Goldbergs. I think I'll follow this up with ECM's recording of John Potter (from the Hilliard Ensemble) performing some really non-HIP versions of John Dowland's music on lute, saxophone, clarinet, baroque violin, and double-bass.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I don't! Never! I want to hear music performed as close to the composers' intentions as possible.
> 
> Always Bach on harpsichord and Baroque Violin. Mozart and Haydn on period instruments and Beethoven keyboard sonatas on Broadwood fortepiano replicas.
> 
> ...


*

Fascinating you should point that out. But is it even possible to match the pitch?

In James Naughtie's interview with Emma Kirkby in the February 2015 edition of BBC MUSIC MAGAZINE, the singer, discussing Bach's pitches (some of which seem written a semi-tone too high in her opinion) makes this observation (p.41): "...Bach was working at different pitches in different cities."

If this is the case, how do we get a precise pitch for various Bach works, knowing that the composer worked in an era where pitches were not set to a precise standard? Kirkby notes that "in one cantata, when he moved from Kothen to Leipzig, he transposed it...." Kirkby emphasizes the point that for a singer a half tone can make a great difference, and that differences exist from sopranos to, say, tenors, in terms of what high notes in a range might mean.

I would propose that those who seek the composer's absolute pitch, at least in terms of Bach, must be disappointed by nearly any, and perhaps every, modern interpretation. After all, if the work sounded higher or lower in Kothen than it did in Liepzig, how should it sound in New York, or Paris, or Vienna, or San Francisco?*


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

HIP is cool but why not go off the books for a very creative interpretation?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Oh and all transcriptions are going to be non-HIP by its very nature... but totally awesome regardless. Props to Glenn Gould my main man for delivering the goods here.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

All those composers wrote on what they had, but as soon as something new appeared, they moved on and began writing for something else. Mozart quit writing on Harpsichord with invention of the Forte-Piano and Beethoven didn't go backwards and write his Piano Sonatas for the Harpsichord, etc. They were progressive thinkers like most musicians I know, myself included. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they would all have moved on and preferred modern instruments and modern-sized orchestras. If they were alive in the 1980's I have no doubt they would have began using Syths in their compositions. To me that's what creative people do, they create, they expand and they progress and I can't see anyone with that kind of intelligence and mentality going, I want my period instruments and forte-piano back.

That said I do believe there is a place for the period instruments and I have no issues with someone wanting to hear how things "may" have sounded back then. It's like visiting a home from the 1700's and seeing how someone lived. What foods they ate, what clothes they wore, etc. It's very interesting to look back to the past and experience how things were or may have been.

But I don't think it should be the only way we hear Bach or Mozart or Beethoven. 

As far as tempos and phrasing and vibrato, the fact is all those components of HIP are an educated guess. We have no recordings and no one alive today was around to hear it back then. I personally don't buy the strict "no vibrato" crowd. I've read too many interviews from orchestra musicians who were alive back in the early 1800's who talked about vibrato to believe it just didn't exist or was seldom used, and I know many people from the HIP crowd have their own sources but it's just not something I buy into.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

bharbeke said:


> I am opposed to using period instruments. Besides hating the sound of the harpsichord and period string instruments, it is not sensible to ask musicians to craft or order specially made instruments to perform a piece.
> 
> Period performance practices are good background for performers, no matter how old the piece is. They should at least be considered, even if a different approach is eventually chosen.
> 
> Music is performed with the materials available in the modern time and for modern ears. I'm of the mind that the music should adapt to fit the times and not vice versa. Some music may fall in and out of favor for periods of time, and that is okay.


What are the chances you'd be opposed to the use of period instruments if you really loved the sound of them?


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

I have actually seen announcements for... IIRC, Scriabin, with period instruments. That's maybe too over-the-top.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Fascinating you should point that out. But is it even possible to match the pitch?
> 
> In James Naughtie's interview with Emma Kirkby in the February 2015 edition of _BBC MUSIC MAGAZINE_, the singer, discussing Bach's pitches (some of which seem written a semi-tone too high in her opinion) makes this observation (p.41): *"...Bach was working at different pitches in different cities*."


Same problem with Buxtehude and other organists. Bach had to use the organs that they had in the place with their particular temperaments and pitches. Some scales would not work well on some organs so he had to transpose. Not just a question of pitch it's also temperament.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The assumption that all music "sounds best" on the precise instruments for which it was written merely _because_ it was written for them is illogical. Music "sounds best" on whatever instruments it sounds best on. If it sounds equally good on a variety of instruments, then there is no reason not to enjoy it on any of those instruments.

In the case of "early" music, it is frequently wrong to assume that music was "written for" any specific instrument at all, much less that the composer had a particular instrumental timbre in mind which dictated his musical choices. Bach wrote keyboard music, much of which designates no particular instrument, and even where a particular instrument is designated, it isn't necessarily the timbre of the instrument which determined that choice, but the instrument's range of pitch, or more mundane practical considerations. The music's formal and expressive qualities can often be realized with equal effectiveness on clavichord, harpsichord, pedal harpsichord, fortepiano, pianoforte, often organs of various diverse sorts, harp, lute, guitar, synthesizer, or any other instrument which can achieve a sufficient clarity of articulation. The use of various instruments to play the same music would not, in such cases, even be regarded as "transcription" in our sense, but merely as business as usual.

Would the capabilities of the modern piano have led Scarlatti or Rameau or Handel to exploit those capabilities in ways that their existing keyboard works do not? Certainly. That does not imply that the qualities of their existing works cannot in many cases be realized on the modern piano.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> What are the chances you'd be opposed to the use of period instruments if you really loved the sound of them?


I'd probably seek out recordings/performances that used them in that case. However, I still would not promote using period instruments as "the way it should be." For example, there are some organs around the world in cathedrals, churches, and concert halls that sound simply stunning and would probably qualify as period instruments. I don't advocate that listeners or performers flock to those locations for performances instead of going with a piano, organ, or synthesizer that is more readily available to them. Let those instruments find their niche audience, and make new instruments based on the musical culture and tastes of the day.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Same problem with Buxtehude and other organists. Bach had to use the organs that they had in the place with their particular temperaments and pitches. Some scales would not work well on some organs so he had to transpose. Not just a question of pitch it's also temperament.


I actually feel that Baroque organ music always sound better on a mean tone organ! There is something about its limitations suit the fx. Bach and Buxtehude like hand in glove.. :tiphat:

Also a consequence people who advocate that the classic composers would prefer the modern symphony orchestra / instruments rarely acknowledges is the fact that how much the technical limitations of their (fx. Mozart, Beethoven or Schubert) contemporary orchestra tradition and instruments shaped how and what they composed! This also gives, that given a different set of circumstances either of these three might not have written the works that some now consider "eternal master works" (I know, a genuinely vague speculation from my side, but not more so then saying that any of these would have preferred modern instruments!)

/ptr


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Again, I think the point is not what composers of the past would have used if the instruments were available. There is no doubt about that. But the simple fact is that only the real instruments of each period were available. Imagine a contemporary master of timbre, like Salvatore Sciarrino. Surely, if he were still alive in the 2100s, and a new technique involving ultrasound resonances, and a special hearing gear for the audience becomes available, he would explore it. But the sad fact is this technique is not available today, so it's better to use to play Sciarrino's music in the 2100s, or it's better to stick to what Sciarrino knew and employed in the 2000s?.

If I were responsible for performing Sciarrino in the 2100s, I would go with 2000s sounds. I'm certain that other people would go with 2100s ultrasounds.

For many, many years, all 18th or 17th century music was played thru a Romantic lens, a 19th century lens. Using not only modern instruments, but Romantic playing techniques, and Romantic conventions. On the other side, going back to period instruments, and/or period playing techniques, gives up back the "original" performance?. Certainly not, this is a dream and ultimately impossible to achieve, without any recorded testimony. And for sure, if we were able to go back to Handel's times, we will notice that each performance was different too, like they are today, like two HIP performances of the same piece are different today. HIP postulates are not a recipe to reach a kind of ur-performance that never was there to begin with, anyway. But, instead of using a 19th century lens, we can use a 21st (and 20th, from the 1950s) century lens to perform ancient music, centered basically in something so simple as to try to perform as close as possible to the score, using wathever was available when the score was written, to the best of our knowledge.

Listen to one of the more famous pieces in the history of Western music, Vivaldi's "Four Seasons", performed by the Berliner Philharmoniker, the English Chamber Orchestra and Europa Galante. It sounds sometimes almost like a different piece of music, right?.
















Having said that, I'm fine to hear this piece, or any other piece, with modern instruments and modern techniques, period instruments and HIP techniques, modern instruments and HIP techniques,.. But, personally, I would use the full HIP approach and through the use of period instruments, as my first choice.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Forget what composers would do if they had future instruments at their disposal...

imagine what the world would be like if _people_ didn't feel the need to come up with after-the-fact intellectual and philosophical rationalisations of why they like stuff!

:devil:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Fashions change; periods of pared down style succeed periods of lushness. Temperamentally, I like the idea of historical authenticity - and as it happens, I have a violin teacher who plays violin/viola in HIP ensembles and a husband who's a fan of HIP. So that's what I tend to be listening to. But like many of the posters above, I like any version that sounds good.

Also for the record, I *like* solo harpsichord.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Fascinating you should point that out. But is it even possible to match the pitch?
> 
> In James Naughtie's interview with Emma Kirkby in the February 2015 edition of _BBC MUSIC MAGAZINE_, the singer, discussing Bach's pitches (some of which seem written a semi-tone too high in her opinion) makes this observation (p.41): *"...Bach was working at different pitches in different cities*."
> 
> ...


Sounds like Bach was the first traveling salesman-working at different pitches in different cities. The first Willy Loman!

Meanwhile, I'd rather go with Gardiner and van Immerseel in HIP Mozart, Bach and Haydn than Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic. They are HIP scholars, probably know a heck of a lot more than Kirkby about HIP performance practice and attempt to recreate sounds a bit closer to what the composer intended according to the latest scholarship. They are fanatical about it (as am I). Lower pitch is part of it.


----------



## PeteW (Dec 20, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> The assumption seems to be that composers of the past were wholly satisfied with the capabilities of the contemporary instruments and would not have wanted anyone to do anything 'modern' with their compositions. I wonder whether any of those accustomed to the harpsichord were longing for piano technology to advance, and would have embraced the instruments of today? I see no justification for insisting that because "that is what it would have sounded like in their day", the only "authentic" performance must be as close as possible to a contemporary one.


I often wonder about this too. The composers of Bach's era (or any era) worked with the technology and instruments available to them at the time. How can we know what Bach would have thought of his music on a modern piano - he might have loved it! You might argue that he would have composed differently with a modern instrument, but o do always imagine that the classical composers would have fully embraced modern technology (at least the modern descendants of the original instruments, if not all that modern technology has to offer). 
I do wonder also, for example, what Bach or Beethoven would have thought of jazz. 
My own feeling (and shoot me down in flames if you wish) is that I do love Bach on the piano - and when I'm in a harpsichord mood then that also feels right at the time.


----------



## PeteW (Dec 20, 2014)

cjvinthechair said:


> Thank you to everyone for a very educational thread !
> 
> Not ashamed to admit I'd never even heard the term HIP until reading it in the title post, & had to look it up on Wikipedia - and that's after listening to thousands of hours of music, & spending a fair bit of time on sites such as this.
> 
> Oh, do hope after reading this you didn't expect some newly informed opinion ? Sorry - shall (I hope !) listen to thousands more hours music and be quite happy to mix and match styles of recording as I've always done. Isn't that part of the joy of music - nothing's so definitive that it can't be investigated from another angle ?


Same here, I found the discussion fascinating and looked up HIP on Google.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

On a side note, I'm a little puzzled by all this mention of Bach writing music for the harpsichord. Some of his works were written for _keyboard_, and some of his greatest has no instrument designation whatsoever. I suppose the concertos for harpsichord were indeed written for harpsichord, and I am splitting hairs, but I have a feeling back in baroque days the instrumentation was not considered sacrosanct. Bach was writing music for God (or perhaps for the ages), not for harpsichord.

Having said all those things seemingly against HIP, I'm certainly glad of it. Glad to free baroque and classic works from the ponderous 19th century, but glad also for the variety of approaches available.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well the clavichord was in vogue back then too, but it was used in very intimate settings since it was very delicate and couldn't project very far.

Nobody's stopping anyone from listening to Bach on a modern Steinway. Just don't kid yourselves into thinking this is what Bach had in mind. Many Bach runs on a modern piano sound mechanically awkward to these ears and oh so right on the harpsichord.
Gee! I wonder why?


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

schigolch said:


> Listen to one of the more famous pieces in the history of Western music, Vivaldi's "Four Seasons", performed by the Berliner Philharmoniker, the English Chamber Orchestra and Europa Galante. It sounds sometimes almost like a different piece of music, right?.
> 
> Having said that, I'm fine to hear this piece, or any other piece, with modern instruments and modern techniques, period instruments and HIP techniques, modern instruments and HIP techniques,.. But, personally, I would use the full HIP approach and through the use of period instruments, as my first choice.


Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was the piece that I was first advised to listen to played by a HIP ensemble...

View attachment 64421


I've no idea how this compares, but I liked it in 1978 and don't really like listening to Nigel Kennedy's...or anyone else's...since.



Nereffid said:


> Forget what composers would do if they had future instruments at their disposal...
> 
> imagine what the world would be like if _people_ didn't feel the need to come up with after-the-fact intellectual and philosophical rationalisations of why they like stuff!


I quite agree. Whilst I can _explain_ why I like what I like, I don't often feel the need to _justify_...though there are times at TC when it can feel like that is what is expected.



hpowders said:


> Just don't kid yourselves into thinking this is what Bach had in mind.


I don't think anyone here is 'kidding' themselves of any such thing, but there are those for whom authenticity is important - and those for whom liking what they like is important. I agree with the poster who said the HIP approach is of value, of interest - just not that this must the be-all and end-all.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Nobody's stopping anyone from listening to Bach on a modern Steinway. Just don't kid yourselves into thinking this is what Bach had in mind. Many Bach runs on a modern piano sound mechanically awkward to these ears and oh so right on the harpsichord.
> Gee! I wonder why?


I agree with a large part of this - sometimes, a piece of Bach has a trill or some other fiddly bit (key technical vocabulary here!) that sounds just like it should be played on a plucked keyboard instrument rather than a hammered keyboard one. Similarly, some performances of transcriptions of keyboard works work, whilst others sound like a modern guitar doing a poor imitation of a baroque keyboard.

But, although my inclination is usually in favour of 'original' instruments and HIP techniques, I am not categorically denying the beauty of using a modern instrument - as Angela Hewitt says in her notes to the well-tempered clavier, if Bach doesn't sound good on a modern piano, blame the performer not the instrument


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> Fashions change; periods of pared down style succeed periods of lushness. Temperamentally, I like the idea of historical authenticity - and as it happens, I have a violin teacher who plays violin/viola in HIP ensembles and a husband who's a fan of HIP. So that's what I tend to be listening to. But like many of the posters above, I like any version that sounds good.
> 
> Also for the record, I *like* solo harpsichord.


You wish this liking to be entered into the record(s)? I hope you realize that this judgement bars you from entering several social/political groupings, probably including the Tory party; certainly the Republican party.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Suppose you're just not interested in history very much - you know, you're not passionate to really find out what things were like in the past. This describes me in fact. I like music though. Is there any reason I should be bothered about HIP? 

What I'm trying to say is this: is HIP the preserve of a handful of history nerds?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I agree with a large part of this - sometimes, a piece of Bach has a trill or some other fiddly bit (key technical vocabulary here!) that sounds just like it should be played on a plucked keyboard instrument rather than a hammered keyboard one. Similarly, some performances of transcriptions of keyboard works work, whilst others sound like a modern guitar doing a poor imitation of a baroque keyboard.
> 
> But, although my inclination is usually in favour of 'original' instruments and HIP techniques, I am not categorically denying the beauty of using a modern instrument - as Angela Hewitt says in her notes to the well-tempered clavier, if Bach doesn't sound good on a modern piano, blame the performer not the instrument


For keyboard Bach, I am fanatically pro-harpsichord. The piano always sounds mechanically awkward for me in Bach.

For Bach on solo violin, I am a bit more flexible. Nathan Milstein's great performances of the solo sonatas and partitas somehow transcend the stylistic anachronisms he employs and communicates glories that many HIP performers do not.
However, this is a once in a lifetime performance and must be welcomed to the head of the table despite stylistic reservations.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

hpowders said:


> For keyboard Bach, I am fanatically pro-harpsichord. The piano always sounds mechanically awkward for me in Bach.
> 
> For Bach on solo violin, I am a bit more flexible. Nathan Milstein's great performances of the solo sonatas and partitas somehow transcend the stylistic anachronisms he employs and communicates glories that many HIP performers do not.
> However, this is a once in a lifetime performance and must be welcomed to the head of the table despite stylistic reservations.


To each his own. To my ears Bach's contrapuntal lines are much clearer on a piano, and the music more expressive. I do not, however, like overtly "pianistic" interpretations like Schiff's.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I agree with a large part of this - sometimes, a piece of Bach has a trill or some other fiddly bit (key technical vocabulary here!) that sounds just like it should be played on a plucked keyboard instrument rather than a hammered keyboard one. Similarly, some performances of transcriptions of keyboard works work, whilst others sound like a modern guitar doing a poor imitation of a baroque keyboard.


Interesting thought, not transcriptions but just the tablature converted to bass and treble clef, what about Dowland lute music on piano?



Mandryka said:


> Suppose you're just not interested in history very much - you know, you're not passionate to really find out what things were like in the past. This describes me in fact. I like music though. Is there any reason I should be bothered about HIP?
> 
> What I'm trying to say is this: is HIP the preserve of a handful of history nerds?


If you like music, you should appreciate the beauty of HIP for certain types of music. HIP is simply another type of analysis, you don't need it to appreciate the beauty but you do need it to create the beauty.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> To each his own. To my ears Bach's contrapuntal lines are much clearer on a piano, and the music more expressive. I do not, however, like overtly "pianistic" interpretations like Schiff's.


That's interesting, 'cause Schiff is usually held up as the Bach piano interpreter supreme.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

hpowders said:


> That's interesting, 'cause Schiff is usually held up as the Bach piano interpreter supreme.


He certainly was held up as second only to Gould when I started buying CDs ~15 years ago, but I think he's fallen from favor a little.

BTW Argerich of all people made a really great Bach piano recording, one of my favorites.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I want to hear harpsichord in baroque pieces that were written for it, but that's about it.

I don't care about period instruments or baroque tuning. And I don't want to Mozart's piano concerti on a fortepiano.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Tristan said:


> I want to hear harpsichord in baroque pieces that were written for it, but that's about it.
> 
> I don't care about period instruments or baroque tuning. And I don't want to Mozart's piano concerti on a fortepiano.


Then you must shudder violently when you hear K.271 with a harpsichord.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Ukko said:


> Then you must shudder violently when you hear K.271 with a harpsichord.


My God why would someone do this


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> My God why would someone do this


For me, it's why not?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Tristan said:


> I want to hear harpsichord in baroque pieces that were written for it, but that's about it.
> 
> I don't care about period instruments or baroque tuning. And I don't want to Mozart's piano concerti on a fortepiano.


No problems... I deliver you Mozart on a bunch of saxophones then


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> My God why would someone do this


There is historical support for it. Mozart's sister performed it in concert on a harpsichord shortly after its performance debut. It may help to consider that at the time (1779), Mozart had not yet found a piano he found really playable (this according to one of his letters from the following year). Igor Kipnis was the harpsichordist in the recording I have (around here somewhere). Except for the instrument's sound being 'back in the orchestra', it works quite well. If the recording isn't somewhere on YouTube, I'll be surprised. I suspect that a 1779 piano would be just as far 'back', unless the microphone arrangement were to be modified. Um, probably not an option in that year.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Re: Mozart on saxophones

This is the kind of thing I really enjoy: talented musicians adapting classical works to modern instruments and/or other genres. Let classical music inspire jazz and vice versa. I saw in the recommendations a Bach cello suite on saxophone, so I'll give that a listen soon, too.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2015)

Here's an interesting article about HIP and the Juilliard School:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/23/how-the-juilliard-school-early-music


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I enjoy my Beethoven Symphonies the good old fashioned way-Karajan, Bernstein/VPO, Wand, Walter.
The HIP I've heard are simply too fast and skim the surface.

This from someone who only listens to Bach in HIP, which in most cases for me sounds just right.


----------



## AnotherSpin (Apr 9, 2015)

For some time I prefer Beethoven HIP recordings.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

isorhythm said:


> HIP is now mainstream and widely accepted. But do you go all the way with HIP? I don't. I prefer almost everything after Bach on modern instruments, and I vastly prefer Bach's solo keyboard works on modern piano. I also wish HIP groups didn't use countertenors everywhere - I prefer female altos.
> 
> How far do you go with HIP? I have no agenda here, I'm just curious.


I find Richter's St. John Passion and Suzuki's or Harnoncourt's own HIP renditions illuminating from one moment to the next. However, with that said I do tend to prefer period instruments, less excessive vibrato and dynamics, a fairly brisker tempo, inventive ornamentation, and so on.

That is mostly because it is more well suited to the composition methods, not simply because I like one sound better than another. If it is baroque music I want to be able to pick out the voices. Richter is always there on the shelf for especially fond memories, but for the most part now I'd like to hear the composer behind what used to be just this wall of romantic gushy sound. There was more than one period of music.

Let's not get silly with it but I prefer that at the very least they trim away all of this superfluous sound. And what I mean by that is that maybe we don't know exact ensemble sizes or just how they played but we can at least rest assured that their ensembles were nothing like the scale of a romantic orchestra and the strings didn't bleed vibrato to the point that you could scarcely pick out everything else. Of course we don't have completely concrete knowledge about it but so much written material about performance has surfaced that we can at least typically agree, depend on the period in question, on some simple principles. It's also hugely important for us to champion original tunings, and by that I don't just mean that Buxtehude's C was our B. What I mean is the implementation of mean tone tuning, just intonation, well/equal temperament, etc. to fit the piece. The reason I feel this is tantamount is because not only were all of the notes a little lower but the intervals themselves were different and different keys had their own distinct character.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Taggart said:


> The further back you go the more important HIP becomes. Partly because of the instruments and partly because of the difficulties of reading the music. You can see this even in the (late) 19th century when they were producing edition of the Fitzwilliam Virginal book. I don't know about HIP much later than Bach except for some of the English like Avison simply because I don't listen to much modern music (post 1800).
> 
> I certainly prefer harpsichord because when you use a piano you have to adapt to match the sort of effects you would get on a harpsichord. In other cases, you have to worry about temperaments - Buxtehude is a classic example since some of his pieces only "work" for specific temperament. Handel seems to have worked with castrati (counter tenors) but when he couldn't get them e.g. the Dublin Messiah, he would transpose down for Susannah Cibber or the London première where he adapted the music for his singers. For me counter tenors seem a good choice - better than the other option.


Not to mention that it's impossible to emulate a lute stop on a piano. Not sure why so many prefer Baroque keyboard music on the piano but it doesn't bug me, I'm not some OCD musicologist out to correct everyone on it.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Where do I part ways with HIP?

I don't. If they could perform the music on ancient Chinese instruments, I'd still listen.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> HIP is cool but why not go off the books for a very creative interpretation?


I don't consider this at all creative, but I do find it a turn-off. Also, the whole affair goes from bad to awful when the singers join the proceedings.

Concerning the theme of the thread, I've been totally into HIP since the 1980's for one reason only - my enjoyment peaks.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I don't consider this at all creative, but I do find it a turn-off. Also, the whole affair goes from bad to awful when the singers join the proceedings.
> 
> Concerning the theme of the thread, I've been totally into HIP since the 1980's for one reason only - my enjoyment peaks.


Hail, Bulldog :tiphat: - I've always hated the Swingle Singers, even tho they rose to fame in my heyday.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I part ways when my MD suggests I may need HIP surgery.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I part ways with HIP on Beethoven's Ninth. Just doesn't sound right.


----------



## Le Peel (May 15, 2015)

I enjoy HIP. I part ways when I don't like it what I'm hearing, that goes for any orchestra.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I part ways with HIP when Roger Norrington conducts Wagner and Bruckner. However I quite like his Mahler.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

There seems to be something of a consensus that although not everyone likes every HIP performance, it is an exciting proposition and we are unanimous as far as I can tell that there is HIP music that, most importantly, sounds great. I'm sure this is intriguing for some of us crustier farts considering the attitude against it in previous decades, from classical listeners in general to the miasma of dogmatic educators that used to abound.

The turnaround here and elsewhere is promising and I look forward to much more excitement as we continue to evaluate new material with our ears and minds. I'm not at all pessimistic of the prospects, people can say "well that doesn't sound any good and it's only claiming to be legit" but they are working towards something great. The first time I heard my favorite cantatas, motets, masses, and so on with smaller ensembles it was as if I heard them for the first time again. It sounded so much more melodic it was a revelation.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I like emotionally expressive performances, and I like personal statements by conductors. That isn't necessarily HIP or not HIP. It's a good performer or a mechanical one.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It's all about the music and how it's done. HIP generally works best with pre-Romantic music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> It's all about the music and how it's done. HIP generally works best with pre-Romantic music.


Hah! That's because Romantic music was mostly composed with 'modern' instruments in mind_, eh?_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Hah! That's because Romantic music was mostly composed with 'modern' instruments in mind_, eh?_


Not in the case of piano music. Early-19th-century pianos can take some getting used to in, say, Chopin. Not fond of them, myself.

On the other hand, I like my _Symphonie Fantastique_ complete with serpent, ophicleide, valveless trumpets, etc. Berlioz wrote of the serpent: "The essentially barbaric timbre of this instrument would have been far more appropriate to the ceremonies of the bloody cult of the Druids than to those of the Catholic religion. There is only one exception to be made - the case where the Serpent is employed in the Masses for the Dead, to reinforce the terrible plainsong of the Dies Irae. Then, no doubt, its cold and abominable howling is in place." Which is exactly how he uses it.

We can listen to an HIP _Fantastique_ on this fascinating recording by John Eliot Gardiner:

http://www.amazon.com/Berlioz-Symph...r=1-1&keywords=symphonie+fantastique+gardiner


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Hah! That's because Romantic music was mostly composed with 'modern' instruments in mind_, eh?_


No, if you do some informed reading for example the Brahms sleeve notes under Roger Norrington and Sir John Eliot Gardiner both show Brahms' orchestra still played with gut strings etc. Metal strings did not make it into the orchestra until much later. Remember many 19th century composers were conservatives and were always mindful of the past practices, even though writing new Romantic music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> No, if you do some informed reading for example the Brahms sleeve notes under Roger Norrington and Sir John Eliot Gardiner both show Brahms' orchestra still played with gut strings etc. Metal strings did not make it into the orchestra until much later. Remember many 19th century composers were conservatives and were always mindful of the past practices, even though writing new Romantic music.


We appear to be contemplating different parts of those stringed instruments. If I may, I would like to suggest that, in many cases, Brahms' orchestral works were performed by orchestras not under his thumb.

:tiphat:


----------

