# My love/hate relationship with HIP



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Well, actually "love/hate" are probably too strong of terms to describe how I feel, but "sort of like/sort of don't" didn't sound as catchy. 

To start with, you need to appreciate that I cut my classical music teeth, as it were, back in the late sixties and early seventies when the ECO was probably the closest we had to HIP (and even they weren't really, I don't think, at the time). The Academy of Ancient Music was founded in 1973. So, the sound of an HIP ensemble was not something I was ever used to while I was getting my classical music "education".

The HIP sound was always a bit of a novelty to me. I liked the sound, and I still do today. But, that's the thing....I like the "sound".

But, for some reason, I have never had any kind of _emotional_ reaction to a piece heard with period-correct instruments, whether by a soloist or by an orchestra. So, for someone new to classical music, I find myself recommending HIP for the sound, but traditional instruments and ensembles to people who want to be moved by the music.

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? I have a suspicion I may be completely alone on this.

Not that that bothers me. I'm used to it.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I don't see how diffrent instruments would make emotional impact lesser by definition. In some cases it could be due to lesser musical forces, like with Beethoven - after you hear Karajan's 5th you will hardly become enraptured by recording from orchestra a'la XVIIIth century. 

But at the same time you have to keep in mind that composers wrote their music for these instruments/ensambles and they shaped them so the emotional contect could be achieved with their usage. And so you will find out that Chopin's harmony reveals diffrent and often surprisingly stronger effects if performed on XIXth century Playel piano. 

Works can indeed increase their impact if supported with modern musical forces, diffrent from original, but they can loose it the same way.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Aramis said:


> I don't see how diffrent instruments would make emotional impact lesser by definition. In some cases it could be due to lesser musical forces, like with Beethoven - after you hear Karajan's 5th you will hardly become enraptured by recording from orchestra a'la XVIIIth century.
> 
> But at the same time you have to keep in mind that composers wrote their music for these instruments/ensambles and they shaped them so the emotional contect could be achieved with their usage. And so you will find out that Chopin's harmony reveals diffrent and often surprisingly stronger effects if performed on XIXth century Playel piano.
> 
> Works can indeed increase their impact if supported with modern musical forces, diffrent from original, but they can loose it the same way.


That does make sense. It could be that I'm still so distracted by the different sounds I'm hearing that I don't have enough sensory "room" for the other emotions.

And, it is true, when I really think about it, that I come a lot closer to getting the "feel" of _Baroque_ music in HIP than I do later music - maybe because I've become more accustomed to hearing it and it doesn't sound as "new" to me. My three favorite baroque CDs currently are all done with HIPs.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I understand how you feel. HIP performances in the beginning were so concerned with the correct instruments with the correct tempi, they many times forgot about the soul of the piece. I'm consistently disappointed with John Eliot Gardiner's slow movements for this reason. Then there's the aspect of individual interpretation. When you're a slave to the score, it's hard to think individually and artistically the way that conductors like Beacham and Furtwangler did. 

I think recently that mindset has loosened up, so artists are feeling more free to interpret pieces within the context of historical performances without feeling like they are restricted to producing a cold marble replica.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I understand how you feel. HIP performances in the beginning were so concerned with the correct instruments with the correct tempi, they many times forgot about the soul of the piece. I'm consistently disappointed with John Eliot Gardiner's slow movements for this reason. Then there's the aspect of individual interpretation. When you're a slave to the score, it's hard to think individually and artistically the way that conductors like Beacham and Furtwangler did.
> 
> I think recently that mindset has loosened up, so artists are feeling more free to interpret pieces within the context of historical performances without feeling like they are restricted to producing a cold marble replica.


Interesting.

I do sort of get that interpretive feel to some of the stuff I've heard from Concerto Italiano and the various ensembles led by Jordi Savall. At least, they can sometimes make me feel that the music itself is coming through and it's not just clean articulation.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I'm not sure where I stand on this. A part of me really craves a recordings of my favorite CPE Bach and WF Bach pieces on modern instruments though.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Well, actually "love/hate" are probably too strong of terms to describe how I feel, but "sort of like/sort of don't" didn't sound as catchy.
> 
> To start with, you need to appreciate that I cut my classical music teeth, as it were, back in the late sixties and early seventies when the ECO was probably the closest we had to HIP (and even they weren't really, I don't think, at the time). The Academy of Ancient Music was founded in 1973. So, the sound of an HIP ensemble was not something I was ever used to while I was getting my classical music "education".
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand what you mean and your last point sums it all up. Speaking with friends in real life, a few who have been listening to classical music much longer than I have also say the same thing as you did. It's a question of what one tends to be used to, and the word "tend" is probably more significant than it might appear. Recordings of great orchestral pieces made in the 50s, 60s and 70s for example often inherited the 20th century conducting styles of maestros who came from a certain conducting "school" if you like. Folks like Karajan and many active today would naturally interpret works in the context of our times, and more importantly perhaps, if that's what one has been hearing since one's discovery of the beauty of many of these great pieces, one tends to prefer such interpretations.

But then when the HIP movement came along and their influence today is more often in pre-Romantic music, one tends now to be more flexible when it comes to HIP interpretation of pre-Romantic music, or certainly pre-Classical music. That tends to be because many of such recordings are now done by such groups and people have become more used to it. The one Baroque composer who still sees a significant amount of appreciation done by non-HIP approach is J. S. Bach, who perhaps not surprisingly, is the only significant Baroque composer who has had a lot of his music conducted and recorded by non-HIP maestros from earlier decades. And his powerfully emotional music to many appears to come through regardless of HIP or not.

Personally, I prefer HIP but this has more to do with the group's approach/style and even HIP also involves some interpretation. One of my friends actually said a useful thing about of all this, and that was she didn't care whether it was modern or period instrumens, or modern pitch versus Baroque pitch or whatever; but considered both ways as a search for that means of making the work _relevant_ to us modern day listeners, and whether or not it gives her a  .


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Manxfeeder said:


> I understand how you feel. HIP performances in the beginning were so concerned with the correct instruments with the correct tempi, they many times forgot about the soul of the piece. I'm consistently disappointed with John Eliot Gardiner's slow movements for this reason. Then there's the aspect of individual interpretation. When you're a slave to the score, it's hard to think individually and artistically the way that conductors like Beacham and Furtwangler did.
> 
> I think recently that mindset has loosened up, so artists are feeling more free to interpret pieces within the context of historical performances without feeling like they are restricted to producing a cold marble replica.


And you know what's funny? In doing so, they are being even more accurate. Can you imagine, in this day and age, _really_ being excited by a harpsichord player who doesn't even improvise his own ornamentation to interpret a work? In general, works like inventions and sinfonias, and passions and oratorios, have once again become more expansive and interpretive too.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

@Harpsichordconcerto: Now that you mention it, the pitch and transposition done by composers in the later Baroque era (when ensembles were being mixed more), makes for a fascinating study.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I definitely see what you mean about losing emotional impact in HIP recordings. And I agree with Manxfeeder in that many of the original practitioners of HIP were overly concerned about "correctness" of performance practice instead of telling us why the pieces themselves are significant.

However, recent recordings, I think, are much better. Yes, the attitude has loosened, but also practitioners of HIP are becoming more comfortable with the idea. If you listen to, say, Herreweghe's Bach recordings, they're incredibly impactful, while still holding to the ideals of the HIP movement. Even Gardiner's more recent efforts are far better than his recordings from the 1980's; he's less concerned with "correctness" now than with just making great music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm used to it.

I agree with HC that this last phrase really sums it all up. perhaps the best example of this that I can think of is in regards to Mozart's Requiem. The version by Sir Neville Marriner with the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields will always be THE Requiem to me as a result of it's use in Amadeus... where I first encountered it and fell in love with it. I began collecting classical music about the time that the HIP movement began to take hold with the release of a lot of long-forgotten earlier music. As I began to build my CD collection digital technology had reached the point where many older recordings could be remastered and were being re-released. As such, I was exposed to both the "old school" recordings of Beecham and Furtwangler and Solti and Karajan as well as the HIP recordings of Marriner, Hogwood, Gardiner, Savall, Herreweghe, etc...

Consequently, I quite like a great many HIP recordings... but I'm no purist. I enjoy Mozart on pianoforte but cannot fathom Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concertos performed on true period instruments. I love Bach performed by Koopman and Gardiner... but may favorite recordings of his keyboard concertos are by Perhia on piano and I largely prefer performances on piano (Gould, Hewitt, Perahia, Schiff, etc...) to almost any I have heard on harpsichord. Ultimately, I am after a performance that respects the intentions of the composer, engages me... and perhaps even enlightens some aspect of the music that I otherwise might have missed. I love Minkowski's turbo-charged HIP recording of Mozart's last two symphonies, yet at the same time I am absolutely enthralled with George Szell's rich performance of Schumann's symphonies that challenges any notion that Schumann wasn't much of a symphonic composer.

In some cases, I can appreciate recordings that are quite at the opposite end of the spectrum. I love both of Glenn Gould's recordings of the Goldberg Variations... but I also love Murray Perahia's and Andreas Staier's performance on harpsichord. I love the romantic bombast of Karajan's Beethoven... but also love Gardiner's stripped-down, muscular Beethoven. I love Walter's and Karajan's Brahms (among other 'old school" performances) but absolutely thrilled to Gardiner's recent muscular and transparent Brahms symphonies with led me to completely rethink my preconception about the leaden density of Brahms. Most recently I have been absolutely blown away by the muscular readings of various Russian composers by Valery Gergiev. His _Nutcracker_, for example, burns with a white hot light and speed that completely led me to a new appreciation for this often overplayed classic.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

I have a love/hate relationship with HIP, too. I also have a couple of strange fixations about them...

1. I find that HIP performances sound best under circumstances that most limit sound reproduction. As an example, I will only listen to HIP performances of Beethoven symphonies on my MP3 player. Big, modern orchestras sound opaque and monochrome through a little set of headphones. On CD at home, I'll listen to both HIP and modern performances - depending on my mood. At a live concert, the HIP performance sounds thin and passionless compared to a rich, dynamic modern orchestra. And it's not just a matter of orchestral size - Beethoven's symphonies from 3 to 8 sound great with a modern orchestra of 40-50 players. 

2. I really don't like the sound of the fortepiano - its sound is muffled in the bass and tinny in the treble. It also sounds strangely out of tune, which might possibly be due to equal temperament tuning on the fortepiano? I'm always shocked how, after the majestic, exciting orchestral introduction to the Mozart D minor piano concerto - this little kiddie toy starts to play. It's almost as bad as if the solo entry of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto came in on a kazoo. 

3. Baroque music went from mundane to wonderful as soon as I heard my first HIP performance. I've been to concerts playing the Bach Brandenburg Concerto #3 with about 50 strings and a harpsichord. Naturally, it turned into a thick soup. My visual impression was "did they really have to pay that keyboard guy?"


----------



## hespdelk (Mar 19, 2011)

I certainly sympathize with the OP. I don't say that I have a love hate relationship, but there is a time and place for everything I guess..

In pre-classical music I tend to prefer HIP, though the group in question makes everything. Personal favourites are Il giardino armonico, Musica Antiqua Koln, and the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra. Others have mentioned Jordi Savall - a truly great musician! ("Tous les matins du monde" is a must see film - I find it uneven in terms of story telling, and it is one of the few films where I'm not too fond of Depardieu's contribution, but Savall's musical input makes it all worthwhile)

I agree with others who have said period performance has come a long way - I really can't stand the early efforts from the 70s and 80s (with a few exceptions of course). Historical insight yes, musical insight not so much. Dry as dust for the most part.. this must sound rather harsh, but it is my honest reaction.

Today there is a wealth of passionate players who really make baroque and rennaissance music live and breath, so I don't find myself reaching for modern instrument versions of this repertoire.

As for classical period and beyond, I am less a fan apart from curiosity. For a while I listened to a number of different Beethoven symphony sets done by different period groups, and while they were illuminating in many details, I never found myself enjoying them much on a musical level. More of a scholarly excercise to me.. Listening to any of the great modern orchestra Beethoven sets... is not a very flattering comparison. :lol:

That said I am grateful for all the new ideas and ways of thinking HIP has brought to us in these past decades, and look forward to its future progress.

At the same time it does annoy a bit when the idea that Beethoven can no longer be played in that rich full way of the great conductors gets thrown around.. it is a cause of sympathy for conductors of today like Thielemann whose very idiosyncracies can be so refreshing sometimes.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not that sophisticated as you lot. I can hear a certain added "warmth" in the strings in HIP performances, but that's kind of about it. & I was at a recent performance here of an all-Mozart program with fully HIP instruments, incl. a replica of a fortepiano of Mozart's time, & it took a while for me to get used to that instrument, it came off initially as being like a harp (which is what Beethoven said of those old pianos, he was far happier, apparently, with the then latest Broadwoods, they were like pianos, not like harps). I am currently hearing Boccherini's music in both HIP and Modern performances, but of different works, and I have no preference in terms of old or new instruments/interpretation. I just go with what I like, basically, that's that...


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm either too young, come to it too late, or too ignorant to hear the supposed lack of emotion in HIP recordings. It may be the result of the selective process in aquiring older CDs but I don't really notice it on older recordings either (though I would say that the quality of HIP performances and recordings have improved considerably -I just don't see, or hear, the 'dry', 'emotionless' thing). I'm not even talking exclusively about period instruments as there's plenty of 'historically informed' stuff on modern instruments these days. I'm sure I'm biased but to my mind it probably has more to do with being accustomed to the florid late romantic style that used to be universally popular. 
Obviously it depends on period to some extent too. The further back you go the more 'wrong' contemporary instruments usually sound. It becomes more problematic with something like Beethoven where, to some extrent, modern instruments were actually developed with an eye to playing that music.

Anywyay, I think Sid has the right approach -go with what you like.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

It's been a while since I had time to check the responses on this thread, and I must say, they have, for the most part, been very thoughtful and insightful. You've all given me a lot to consider, not the least being the impression that a change has occurred over the years in the interpretive quality of HIPs (which may account for my liking some of the Baroque HIPs I've heard recently, since I've pretty much stayed away from pos-Baroque HIPs after my disappointment with Hogwood and Norrington in Beethoven many years ago.)

I have to tell you though, that a couple of you misunderstood my remark "I'm used to it" by turning it into a significant observation on my reactions to traditional performances. You almost make me wish that is what I meant when I said it. But, in reality, my comment "I'm used to it" was meant to be a comment on my previous expression 'I'm probably alone in this' (or, however, I actually said it), meaning "I'm used to being abnormal".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I see. No, I don't think you are "abnormal" to use your word. I have friends who prefer the "full-blooded Romantic style" interpretation of Beethoven's symphonies. His symphonies were so forward in time that whatever interpretation (within reason of course) offer different nuances of the score.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Let's not forget that in the first decade of HIP it was ok to be a bad period instrument player, whereas now the players actually master their period instruments.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I have friends who prefer the "full-blooded Romantic style" interpretation of Beethoven's symphonies. His symphonies were so forward in time that whatever interpretation (within reason of course) offer different nuances of the score.


Well said. I got into classical music because of the HIP movement. I was averse to portamento and wide vibrato and romantic excesses. Now, though, I'm going backward; I still listen to historically accurate performances, but I also really like listening to conductors like Furtwangler and Beacham and scratchy old performances that show intelligence and individual vision.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Sometimes HIP sounds right. Sometimes Modern sounds right. Take it on a case by case basis, and you'll sleep better at night.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

To me, while period interpretations stick out like a sore thumb, some of them are quite wonderful and I wouldn't have certain compositions any other way. This being said, I love the sound of modern instruments recorded in a modern setting. As long the performance is good and done with style and taste it can be played on a tin can for all I care...this is, perhaps, why I am so fond of electronic instruments because the performance is far more important than what it is being played on. I, for one, would rather hear Giddon Kremer play a beat up, old violin with holes in it and rusty strings than some first week student on the best violin ever crafted.


----------



## hespdelk (Mar 19, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I'm not that sophisticated as you lot. I can hear a certain added "warmth" in the strings in HIP performances, but that's kind of about it. & I was at a recent performance here of an all-Mozart program with fully HIP instruments, incl. a replica of a fortepiano of Mozart's time, & it took a while for me to get used to that instrument, it came off initially as being like a harp (which is what Beethoven said of those old pianos, he was far happier, apparently, with the then latest Broadwoods, they were like pianos, not like harps). I am currently hearing Boccherini's music in both HIP and Modern performances, but of different works, and I have no preference in terms of old or new instruments/interpretation. I just go with what I like, basically, that's that...


For the most part I don't like Mozart done on period instruments - but interestingly Boccherini is post-baroque exception. His music really thrives on the gut string sound of period string instruments, particularly works featuring solo cello - the instrument reacts differently and his writing plays to those strengths. These subtlties are lost on modern strings. My favourite Boccherini recording is the set by Tafelmusik of a couple of his cello concertos and symphonies - quite revetting.

His chamber works thus far I have enjoyed on modern instruments - but I haven't really come across any compelling period versions. I can't help but feel there is something to be discovered there.

I have a recording of Beethoven's 5th and 9th violin sonatas accompanied by fortepiano - I actually enjoy the more delicate somewhat 'tinkley' sound of the instrument in these pieces.. but I really can't find much pleasure in that sound when it comes to the big solo piano sonatas and concertos. As others have mentioned his music is so forward thinking - I've always seen him as struggling against the limitations of his time, and as a result influencing the development of the technical innovations we enjoy today.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Interesting reading your thoughts, *hespdelk*. I'm not as nuanced as you or others here. If something grabs me, it doesn't necessarily have to do with it being HIP or modern or whatever.

I've just gotten a Naxos disc of Anthony Halstead conducting Boccherini's cello concertos. He's known as period instruments conductor, but in that recording is working with a modern chamber orchestra. So there's also a third category, which is like this, it's in-between.

One HIP recording I loved was the one also on Naxos of Andreas Spering conducting Haydn's _The Creation_. I used it to familiarise myself with the work before hearing it live in the middle of this year. It's just such a great work, pure genius in all ways. I think the work kind of speaks for itself, it doesn't really matter to me what way it's done.

But I'm not surprised with your mixed view of the fortepiano. At that concert, it took me quite a while to attune myself to it's sound, which was so "small," but I'd admit it was quite nuanced, subtle compared to a modern piano. But I have also been attuned to modern performances of Mozart's piano concertos, I think the 22nd was performed in that concert, I remember hearing it played on a modern piano before, so I had to kind of adjust my listening, but in the end I enjoyed it, I kind of enjoyed the contrast in many ways...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

The early fortepianos should perhaps be viewed as an instrument with the "new" hammering action in a _harpsichord's_ case, not necessarily as a predecessor of a concert grand that you might be used to. With this in mind, it might perhaps help with what one might expect to hear with early fortepianos. In other words, think about where the early fortepianos came from, but not as where the modern piano was derived from.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*hespedelk wrote:*



> His chamber works thus far I have enjoyed on modern instruments - but I haven't really come across any compelling period versions. I can't help but feel there is something to be discovered there.


Sorry, I'm a little taken aback by this remark. Have you not heard La Magnifica Communita's recordings of the string quintets? Surely that is the only way someone could claim to have not heard compelling period renditions of his chamber music -there's also some great sets by Europa Galante and by Jordi Savall + chums, and most of the other Brilliant recordings are as advertised to boot.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree that La Magnifica Comunita is very good, I have their disc of Boccherini's _3 String Quintets with double bass, Op. 39_.

I think I'm interested in how a work is played, not necessarily on what instruments it's played. & the acoustic as well. Eg. I have two modern interpretations of different Boccherini guitar quintets, and they are like night and day in terms of how they play these works, as well as other things like the focus of the acoustic, etc. I started out liking only one and not the other for various reasons, but now I'm liking the other one as well. I'm talking about a local recording on ABC Classics with our own Karin Schaupp playing guitar, and a Naxos one with Zoltan Tokos. The Aussie one was recorded live in concert, so I have a feeling that the guitar may have been amplified in that, whereas in the Naxos one the guitar sounds fainter, sometimes like a harpsichord, so I think that's just a more natural acoustic...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

hocket said:


> *hespedelk wrote:*
> 
> Have you not heard La Magnifica Communita's recordings of the string quintets? Surely that is the only way someone could claim to have not heard compelling period renditions of his chamber music -there's also some great sets by Europa Galante and by Jordi Savall + chums, and most of the other Brilliant recordings are as advertised to boot.


I have been collecting the La Magnifica Communita's series on Brilliant Classics. They are a period instrument group and offer excellent interpretation of Boccherini's works. Having recorded extensively, they have much experience under their belts. Warmly recommend their recordings. And coming from Brilliant Classics, they are cheap as chips, with extensive sleeve notes that you expect from a premium price label.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I have been collecting the La Magnifica Communita's series on Brilliant Classics. They are a period instrument group and offer excellent interpretation of Boccherini's works.


I'm listening to one of these on Spotify. It sounds like they are playing far back from the microphones. Is that the case, or is it just the sound of my cheap speakers and Spotify? It's not that big a deal, just something I'd have to adjust to.


----------



## hespdelk (Mar 19, 2011)

hocket said:


> *hespedelk wrote:*
> 
> Sorry, I'm a little taken aback by this remark. Have you not heard La Magnifica Communita's recordings of the string quintets? Surely that is the only way someone could claim to have not heard compelling period renditions of his chamber music -there's also some great sets by Europa Galante and by Jordi Savall + chums, and most of the other Brilliant recordings are as advertised to boot.


As a matter of fact I am not familiar with these recordings, and I thank you for the recommendation I'll add them to my list of things to listen to.

I admit I haven't actively sought out more recordings of these works in a long while as I was fairly content with the old sets Philips produced years back - perhaps the time has come, the Brilliant pricing makes it an appealing avenue of exploration!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The early fortepianos should perhaps be viewed as an instrument with the "new" hammering action in a _harpsichord's_ case, not necessarily as a predecessor of a concert grand that you might be used to. With this in mind, it might perhaps help with what one might expect to hear with early fortepianos. In other words, think about where the early fortepianos came from, but not as where the modern piano was derived from.


Precisely. It helps to think of them serving a purpose more akin to the late Baroque clavier, than them sounding like the wild concert instrument we play today.


----------

