# Romantic era operas on period instruments?



## PrimoUomo (Jul 7, 2013)

Hello, i want to know if there are any cds with romantic era operas played on period instruments. I know that Cecilia Bartoli's new Norma cd is palyed on period instruments, and the two Rossini operas recorded by Cappella Coloniensis are also palyed on period instruments. 
But are there only these 3 operas? Or are there more romantic era operas palyed on period instruments?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

There are several examples, yes.

This is the Norma original of the Biondi's brothers, from Parma:






This is another Rossini's example:










Lucia di Lammermoor:










You can find also a _Imelda de Lambertazzi_ published in Opera Rara

The trend is not only for Italian opera. I attended a performance this year of _Parsifal_, conducted by Thomas Hengelbrock, that pretended to explore the sound universe of the piece, by trying to recreate the original instruments used in 1882. The final result was indeed kind of surprising, more different than I personally expected from the traditional Bayreuth's sound of the 1950s or the current practice.


----------



## PrimoUomo (Jul 7, 2013)

Many thanks! I was very glad to se Bruce Ford in the Donizetti opera! I have also find a recording of Tancredi by Cappella Coloniensis. Thanks! Is there some more by Bellini?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, you can find also another of those Bartoli's acts, this time with "La Sonnambula".

However, paraphrasing Philip Gosset, talking about performing early 19th century Italian Opera: "there are excellent reasons to use period instruments, and there are excellent reasons to use modern instruments. There are even better reasons to use modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the way earlier instruments sounded".

For instance, although the versions of "La Straniera" and "Il Pirata" released by Opera Rara are using The London Philharmonic, and not a period-instrument orchestra, I think they are close to that ideal of "using modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the earlier instruments", advocated by Mr. Gosset.


----------



## PrimoUomo (Jul 7, 2013)

Many thanks for you help!


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Well, you can find also another of those Bartoli's acts, this time with "La Sonnambula".
> 
> However, paraphrasing Philip Gosset, talking about performing early 19th century Italian Opera: "there are excellent reasons to use period instruments, and there are excellent reasons to use modern instruments. There are even better reasons to use modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the way earlier instruments sounded".
> 
> For instance, although the versions of "La Straniera" and "Il Pirata" released by Opera Rara are using The London Philharmonic, and not a period-instrument orchestra, I think they are close to that ideal of "using modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the earlier instruments", advocated by Mr. Gosset.


Based on that logic, Australian Aboriginies should be playing their traditional didgeridoo music on bassoons. There is absolutely no good reason to play any music on any instrument other than the instrument that the composer intended it to be played on (other than personal aesthetic preference, which varies from one person to the next).


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, my (personal) first choice is always to use the same intrument that the composer had in mind, whenever possible. If Bach wrote a piece for a harpsichord, and I use a harpsichord to play that piece, it's difficult to see anything wrong with that, right?.

Having said that, an orchestra playing opera, it's a more problematic beast. Think about the examples mentioned in the thread. Let's take "Norma", for instance (premiered in 1831). In the first half of 2015 alone, there are going to be 13 productions, in cities like Torino, Seville, Munich, Venice,... even Beirut!. Should we request that an orchestra like Europa Galante will play all these performances?. This is impossible, right?. So, apart from aesthetical or musicological reasons, most performances of "Norma" are always going to be played with a modern orchestra. That's why Mr. Gossett (and I have the same feeling) think it's more important to 'use the modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the earlier instruments'.

And not only about the orchestra, think about the voices. In the times of Bellini, when he wrote "Norma" or "La Sonnambula" the tenors were supposed to sing the high notes in _falsettone_, and this explains for instance why Pollione's vocal writing jump from high G to high C, or the stratospheric notes written for Arturo or Elvino. Of course, _falsettone_ just about disappeared soon after the death of Bellini. Should we require modern tenors sing again in _falsettone_?. Again, this is simply impossible, not going to happen.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Well, my (personal) first choice is always to use the same intrument that the composer had in mind, whenever possible. If Bach wrote a piece for a harpsichord, and I use a harpsichord to play that piece, it's difficult to see anything wrong with that, right?.
> 
> Having said that, an orchestra playing opera, it's a more problematic beast. Think about the examples mentioned in the thread. Let's take "Norma", for instance (premiered in 1831). In the first half of 2015 alone, there are going to be 13 productions, in cities like Torino, Seville, Munich, Venice,... even Beirut!. Should we request that an orchestra like Europa Galante will play all these performances?. This is impossible, right?. So, apart from aesthetical or musicological reasons, most performances of "Norma" are always going to be played with a modern orchestra. That's why Mr. Gossett (and I have the same feeling) think it's more important to 'use the modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the earlier instruments'.
> 
> And not only about the orchestra, think about the voices. In the times of Bellini, when he wrote "Norma" or "La Sonnambula" the tenors were supposed to sing the high notes in _falsettone_, and this explains for instance why Pollione's vocal writing jump from high G to high C, or the stratospheric notes written for Arturo or Elvino. Of course, _falsettone_ just about disappeared soon after the death of Bellini. Should we require modern tenors sing again in _falsettone_?. Again, this is simply impossible, not going to happen.


schigoch, your previous post was about there being better reasons to play on modern instruments than on period instruments. There was nothing about using modern instruments where period instruments aren't available.

I agree with you that not many period instrument orchestras are currently performing Romantic operas. Therefore, it's better that the modern orchestras have an understanding of period articulation, phrasing, etc. However, that's very different to saying "There are even better reasons to use modern instruments [than period instruments], with an intimate knowledge of the way earlier instruments sounded". That's an argument to use modern instruments INSTEAD of period instruments.

As for voices, that's a difficult thing to duplicate. Should voices be used to as closely as possible approximate the sound of period voices? Yes, if you want to get as close as possible to what the composer was writing for.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, in my view is not. At least the way I understand the above, it's just an argument that, given the fact that in most cases a Romantic, early Romantic in this case, opera is going to be performed using modern intruments (and this is not an opinion, it's simply a fact), *it's much better* if the musicians are aware of how the period instruments were supposed to sound.

Now, there is a long tradition, and a long *recorded* tradition, on how to perform "Norma". There are of course different approaches, Serafin's is very different from Bonynge's, but none of them until very recently used a period instrument orchestra, and it's likely few of them will do in the future. If I were required to conduct "Norma", my own approach would be to use the period instrument orchestra, if available. This is what I prefer, and my "aesthetic" and "musicological" conviction.

Then again, in an opera like "Norma" the orchestra take a back seat to singing. In Bellini's own words: 'Il dramma per musica deve far piangere, inorridire, morire... cantando'. That's why it seems more important to me how the singing goes, than what is happening in the pit (or outside the pit, if we have a really HIP performance ). And in this arena, though there have been a couple of experiments with the _falsettone_, I'm 100% convinced that tenors are not going to use it to perform Pollione in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Well, in my view is not. At least the way I understand the above, it's just an argument that, given the fact that in most cases a Romantic, early Romantic in this case, opera is going to be performed using modern intruments (and this is not an opinion, it's simply a fact), *it's much better* if the musicians are aware of how the period instruments were supposed to sound.
> 
> Now, there is a long tradition, and a long *recorded* tradition, on how to perform "Norma". There are of course different approaches, Serafin's is very different from Bonynge's, but none of them until very recently used a period instrument orchestra, and it's likely few of them will do in the future. If I were required to conduct "Norma", my own approach would be to use the period instrument orchestra, if available. This is what I prefer, and my "aesthetic" and "musicological" conviction.
> 
> Then again, in an opera like "Norma" the orchestra take a back seat to singing. In Bellini's own words: 'Il dramma per musica deve far piangere, inorridire, morire... cantando'. That's why it seems more important to me how the singing goes, than what is happening in the pit (or outside the pit, if we have a really HIP performance ). And in this arena, though there have been a couple of experiments with the _falsettone_, I'm 100% convinced that tenors are not going to use it to perform Pollione in the foreseeable future.


I agree with everything you said there, schigolch.

What I take exception to is Gosset saying, "there are excellent reasons to use period instruments, and there are excellent reasons to use modern instruments. There are even better reasons to use modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the way earlier instruments sounded". That sounds like the best reasons of all concern using modern instruments with a nod to the past.

I would respond in the following way:

"there are excellent reasons to use period instruments" *I agree. In fact the best reason is they are the only instruments for which the work was written.*

"and there are excellent reasons to use modern instruments." *I disagree. The only reasons why modern instruments are a good idea is if period instruments aren't available, or if the majority of the audience prefers music to be played on different instruments to those intended by the composer. *

"There are even better reasons to use modern instruments, with an intimate knowledge of the way earlier instruments sounded". *I agree that there are better reasons to use modern instruments in a way that mimics period instruments than to use modern instruments with no attempt at making them sound 'period'. However, this is still a poor option compaired to not using modern instruments at all.*

In the end, it's all a matter of personal preference. Some people love enacting Shakespeare whilst wearing jeans and t-shirt, and speaking in modern English. Personally, I detest that.

Here's how I would phrase the point we are discussing: *The only time modern instruments should be used to perform works written by composers of the Late Romantic period and back are when period instruments aren't available. If modern instruments have to be used, then the players should study historical performance practice so as to closely approximate the sound and phrasing of period musicians playing period instruments.*


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> "there are excellent reasons to use period instruments" *I agree. In fact the best reason is they are the only instruments for which the work was written.*
> 
> "and there are excellent reasons to use modern instruments." *I disagree. The only reasons why modern instruments are a good idea is if period instruments aren't available, or if the majority of the audience prefers music to be played on different instruments to those intended by the composer. *
> 
> ...


I would disagree. Whilst I find it interesting to hear performances on period instruments to have an idea of what contemporary audiences heard I can't imagine that any composers intended their work to be 'frozen' to the technology of the day. They wrote for the best instruments available at the time.

Beethoven is probably the best documented in this regard. The piano was a rapidly developing instrument in his time. Can you imagine his demanding that his Piano Concerto No. 0 only be played on 1784 instruments in 1810 when he wrote the "Emperor" or that he didn't foresee the "Emperor" being played on even better instruments in the future? He would have loved to hear his work on a concert grand.

However, that said, performers must be sensitive to the relative sound and power of modern instruments compared to period instruments and not overwhelm the balance just because they can.
So I agree with Gosset on this.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> I would disagree. Whilst I find it interesting to hear performances on period instruments to have an idea of what contemporary audiences heard I can't imagine that any composers intended their work to be 'frozen' to the technology of the day. *They wrote for the best instruments* available at the time.
> 
> Beethoven is probably the best documented in this regard. The piano was a rapidly developing instrument in his time. Can you imagine his demanding that his Piano Concerto No. 0 only be played on 1784 instruments in 1810 when he wrote the "Emperor" or that he didn't foresee the "Emperor" *being played on even better instruments* in the future? He would have loved to hear his work on a concert grand.
> 
> ...


Better? That's a value judgement. There's nothing to say a modern piano is better than one made in 1780. There's also nothing to say Beethoven would have approved of a concert grand. When J.S.Bach heard the new fortepiano, he expressed preference for the harpsichord.

If you prefer the sound of modern instruments, then that's your value judgement. I'm talking broadly about which instruments are most appropriate for any given work. The answer that makes the most sense is: the instruments that the composer had in mind when he wrote the work.

This idea that the newer the instrument, the 'better' it is is quite strange. The most notable change in instruments is character. Who's to say one character is better than another? If you were to hear instruments of 200 years from now, you may well conclude that, whilst they're louder, smoother, more tonally accurate, differently coloured, etc., you prefer what we have today. Maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Better? That's a value judgement. There's nothing to say a modern piano is better than one made in 1780. There's also nothing to say Beethoven would have approved of a concert grand. When J.S.Bach heard the new fortepiano, he expressed preference for the harpsichord.


Given that Beethoven's page turner was also responsible for unjamming hammers stuck between strings, and changing broken strings whilst he played I think there is a case for saying the modern piano is "better".

Insofar as Bach's opinion is concerned it's not germane to this discussion, I didn't (and don't) say the piano is "better" than the harpsichord. They're different instruments.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I
> Here's how I would phrase the point we are discussing: *The only time modern instruments should be used to perform works written by composers of the Late Romantic period and back are when period instruments aren't available. If modern instruments have to be used, then the players should study historical performance practice so as to closely approximate the sound and phrasing of period musicians playing period instruments.*


Well, as I don't want to risk misrepresenting Mr. Gossett's opinions, I'm not going to comment more on that. I think that my opinion was clear enough in the above posts.

About your sentence on period instruments... I certainly share that feeling. However, I guess you understand this is not going to happen anytime soon, right?. Romantic opera is going to be performed in the coming years using modern instruments, and period instruments are going to be just an exception to this rule. This is a fact.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Given that Beethoven's page turner was also responsible for unjamming hammers stuck between strings, and changing broken strings whilst he played I think there is a case for saying the modern piano is "better".


By that logic, music should be played on the most reliable instruments, rather than the instruments that sound preferable. I suppose you think a digital piano is better than a Steinway concert grand because it (the digital piano) never goes out of tune.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Insofar as Bach's opinion is concerned it's not germane to this discussion,


Yes it is. A modern piano is as distinct from an early fortepiano, as is a harpsichord from same. Perhaps more so, in fact.

It comes back to the same point that I am making: playing music on ANY instrument that sounds DIFFERENT to those that the composer wrote the music for is a bad idea. Whether or not a modern harpsichord or a modern piano replaces the Baroque harpsichord in a keyboard concerto by Haydn, the point I make remains the same.

Your assertion that Beethoven (and I imagine you'd say any other dead composer) would be delighted with our modern instruments because they are supposedly 'better' is without foundation. My assertion that that any composer of a bygone era would approve of their music being played on the instruments they wrote the music for is common sense.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> By that logic, music should be played on the most reliable instruments, rather than the instruments that sound preferable. I suppose you think a digital piano is better than a Steinway concert grand because it (the digital piano) never goes out of tune.


Please don't suppose to know what I think. Digital pianos are different instruments than Steinway concert grands. However I do think 2015 digital pianos are "better" than 1990 digital pianos.

Alfred Brendel wrote:
"Beethoven's piano work pointed far into the future of piano building" and that "decades had to pass after his death before there were pianos-and pianists-equal to the demands of his 'Hammerklavier'
Sonata Op. 106"


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Your assertion that Beethoven (and I imagine you'd say any other dead composer) would be delighted with our modern instruments because they are supposedly 'better' is without foundation. My assertion that that any composer of a bygone era would approve of their music being played on the instruments they wrote the music for is common sense.


I'd like to show you a clip from the great documentary Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure... but it's not available on YouTube.






In case you are unfamiliar with this film it shows Ludwig van Beethoven playing a variety of electric pianos with obvious delight.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Please don't suppose to know what I think. Digital pianos are different instruments than Steinway concert grands. However I do think 2015 digital pianos are "better" than 1990 digital pianos.


Oh my goodness! You're really clutching at straws. Pianos are pianos. A digital piano by Yamaha, Roland, etc, sounds nearly exactly the same as the concert grand that its audio is sampled from. The only real difference is in its physical make-up. You throw at me reliability/build quality as being a reason why a composer would prefer a modern instrument to one from his day, and then you try to deflect that argument by saying a digital piano is a different instrument to an acoustic piano...



> Alfred Brendel wrote:
> "Beethoven's piano work pointed far into the future of piano building" and that "decades had to pass after his death before there were pianos-and pianists-equal to the demands of his 'Hammerklavier'
> Sonata Op. 106"


That is an hilarious quote! So the pianos that Beethoven composed for couldn't play the notes he wrote? Or is it that the amazing compositions he wrote have qualities that a fortepiano simply can't express? What a ridiculous idea. There are fortepianists today (such as Bilson, Tan, Immerseel, Brautigam, etc) who would tell you you're completely incorrect to think a fortepiano isn't capable of 100% ideally expressing Beethoven's works.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> That is an hilarious quote! So the pianos that Beethoven composed for couldn't play the notes he wrote? Or is it that the amazing compositions he wrote have qualities that a fortepiano simply can't express? What a ridiculous idea. There are fortepianists today (such as Bilson, Tan, Immerseel, Brautigam, etc) who would tell you you're completely incorrect to think a fortepiano isn't capable of 100% ideally expressing Beethoven's works.


Perhaps you'd prefer a quote from Beethoven himself:
"It is and remains an inadequate instrument."


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Perhaps you'd prefer a quote from Beethoven himself:
> "It is and remains an inadequate instrument."


You left off the other part of that quote by Beethoven that went something like this: "Some day, there will be a piano that has a more homogenous sound. The higher registers will be clearer, and the lower registers not as bright. There will be much more volume of sound, and there will be a third pedal added. That's the kind of piano I'm writing my works for. The current technology just isn't keeping up with my ideas."

... and then you wake up, Don.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> You left off the other part of that quote by Beethoven that went something like this: "Some day, there will be a piano that has a more homogenous sound. The higher registers will be clearer, and the lower registers not as bright. There will be much more volume of sound, and there will be a third pedal added. That's the kind of piano I'm writing my works for. The current technology just isn't keeping up with my ideas."
> 
> ... and then you wake up, Don.


Nope don't remember that one but he did describe Op. 106 as a "sonata that will give pianists something to do played 50 years hence"


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The whole period instrument movement is based on a number of very iffish premises . I'm not opposed to them per se ; it was an interesting idea in theory . But how do we know that old instruments or replicas of them sound exactly as they did in the past, or are being played exactly as they were long ago. WE don't A time machine has yet to be invented . And how do we know thwe are interpreting the music exactly as the composers would have wanted ? We don't . 
Those who say we can't assume that composers from the past would have preferred our modern instruments if they could come back and hear them are right . But we don't know they would have
disliked them, either , or objected to hearing their music on them . 
Take the question of pitch . Playing everything from the 18th and early 19th century a half tone lower is not authentic at all . There was no uniformity of pitch until the 20th century, when a=440 became the nrm, or something close to it. Pitch varied greatly from time to place in the past . 
Even cities which were close to each other used different pitch . 
So when you hear Norma played on period instruments, such as in the recent recording , you are hearing what it MIGHT have sounded like in Bellini's day , or the Lucia conducted by the late Sir Charles Mackerras , or even Wagner . I've heard part of the concert performance of Das Rheingold with Sir Simon Rattle and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment on Youtube. ; it really didn't sound very different from the recordings of Solti, Karajan, Boehm, Barenboim, Boulez, Knappertsbusch and other great Wagner conductors . 
I doubt very much that Wagner would have disliked hearing his music played by the Vienna or Berlin Philharmonics, or the Staatskapelle, Dresden or the Bavarian Radio symphony, or the Met orchestra . 
The use of period instruments doesn't guarantee anything artistically or aesthetically ; the musicianship of the performers has to be of high quality, too . Or as the eminent musicologist Richard Taruskin has said , "Instruments don't make music ; people do ".
.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Nope don't remember that one but he did describe Op. 106 as a "sonata that will give pianists something to do played 50 years hence"


You are great at quoting Beethoven, Don! You're building a compelling case for Beethoven being named as the successor to Nostradamus! I mean, just look at all the irrefutable evidence that Beethoven knew EXACTLY what was going to happen to the piano in the 20th Century!

Poor old Beethoven was composing for those useless fortepianos, and having visions of what modern pianos would be like in a couple of hundred years. With that in mind, he composed music that could be fully realised only long after his death! What a supernatural being Beethoven was!

Thanks for the insight, Don.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

superhorn said:


> The whole period instrument movement is based on a number of very iffish premises .


Hahaha! That's the best post on this thread so far!


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

superhorn said:


> The whole period instrument movement is based on a number of very iffish premises . I'm not opposed to them per se ; it was an interesting idea in theory . But how do we know that old instruments or replicas of them sound exactly as they did in the past, or are being played exactly as they were long ago. WE don't A time machine has yet to be invented . And how do we know thwe are interpreting the music exactly as the composers would have wanted ? We don't .


With all due respect, superhorn, I think people such as Immerseel, Leonhardt (recently passed away), Gardiner, Goodman, Goebel, Koopman, and a whole host of other early music scholars would disagree with you.



> Those who say we can't assume that composers from the past would have preferred our modern instruments if they could come back and hear them are right . But we don't know they would have disliked them, either , or objected to hearing their music on them .


That being the case, are you fine with their music being played in ANY way by ANY combination of ANY instruments? I'm not okay with that at all, of course.



> Take the question of pitch . Playing everything from the 18th and early 19th century a half tone lower is not authentic at all . There was no uniformity of pitch until the 20th century, when a=440 became the nrm, or something close to it. Pitch varied greatly from time to place in the past . Even cities which were close to each other used different pitch .
> So when you hear Norma played on period instruments, such as in the recent recording , you are hearing what it MIGHT have sounded like in Bellini's day , or the Lucia conducted by the late Sir Charles Mackerras , or even Wagner . I've heard part of the concert performance of Das Rheingold with Sir Simon Rattle and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment on Youtube. ; it really didn't sound very different from the recordings of Solti, Karajan, Boehm, Barenboim, Boulez, Knappertsbusch and other great Wagner conductors .


Really? I'm surprised you can't hear the massive differences between modern and period instruments.



> I doubt very much that Wagner would have disliked hearing his music played by the Vienna or Berlin Philharmonics, or the Staatskapelle, Dresden or the Bavarian Radio symphony, or the Met orchestra .


Why do you doubt that? Based on what evidence do you doubt that?



> The use of period instruments doesn't guarantee anything artistically or aesthetically ; the musicianship of the performers has to be of high quality, too .


Sorry, but that's just absolutely incorrect. Period instruments most definitely do guarantee aesthetic difference from modern instruments (whether perceived as good or bad by the listener).



> Or as the eminent musicologist Richard Taruskin has said , "Instruments don't make music ; people do ".


Actually, instruments AND people make music (even if the voice needs to be counted as an instrument).

Do you think it's possible to make beautuful music with a few sticks to beat together?

If your theory is correct, it's a shame that the last few hundred years worth of instrument makers and composers spent so much time and effort worrying about the type, quality, pitch, etc. of the instruments they made/wrote music for. All they needed was instruments, ANY INSTRUMENTS, and the human factor would do the rest...


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> You are great at quoting Beethoven, Don! You're building a compelling case for Beethoven being named as the successor to Nostradamus!


Well I do like to support my opinions with evidence where it exists rather than make statements like "_There are fortepianists today (such as Bilson, Tan, Immerseel, Brautigam, etc) who would tell you you're completely incorrect to think a fortepiano isn't capable of 100% ideally expressing Beethoven's works._" without any quotes or citations; ie only your assertions.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Raefus Authenticus, the "massive differences " you cite are in the instruments of the baroque and classical periods; I most certainly can hear them . But once you get into the time of Wagne and beyond, there is less and less difference .
As I said, I'm not opposed to period instruments per se, and I have enjoyed quite of few performances on them , and have quite a few in my CD collection . But I still have no objection to the use of modern instruments , and I'm still skeptical as to how "authentic" the period instrument performances of the last several decades are . I repeat - we have absolutely no way of knowing what long dead composers would have thought of the performances on period instruments by Norrington, Gardiner, Hogwood, Leonhardt, et al .However, some period instrument performances, particularly the gut strings, sound awful to my ears . A nasal, pinched, wheezing sound . I'd rather hear chalk squeaking on a chalkboard !
And we can't say that Bach would have disliked hearing his keyboard works played on a modern piano , or that Mozart would have disliked the modern valved horn , or that Beethoven would have disliked hearing his symphonies played by Solti and the Chicago symphony ,or that Rossini, Bellini and Donizetti would have disliked hearing the Met or Covent Garden orchestra, or La Scala today playing their operas . We shouldn't be putting worlds into the mouths of long dead composers , period .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

superhorn said:


> The whole period instrument movement is based on a number of very iffish premises . I'm not opposed to them per se ; it was an interesting idea in theory . But how do we know that old instruments or replicas of them sound exactly as they did in the past, or are being played exactly as they were long ago. WE don't A time machine has yet to be invented . And how do we know thwe are interpreting the music exactly as the composers would have wanted ? We don't .
> Those who say we can't assume that composers from the past would have preferred our modern instruments if they could come back and hear them are right . But we don't know they would have
> disliked them, either , or objected to hearing their music on them .
> Take the question of pitch . Playing everything from the 18th and early 19th century a half tone lower is not authentic at all . There was no uniformity of pitch until the 20th century, when a=440 became the nrm, or something close to it. Pitch varied greatly from time to place in the past .
> ...


Thanks for interrupting the torrent of presumptuous dogmatism pouring out of this thread with a little sanity and common sense.

The use of period instruments is, by and large, a fine idea, and written sources, as well as the structure of the old instruments themselves, can guide us toward a manner of playing which may bring us closer to performing styles of the past.

That is as much as we can say with confidence.

If we imagine that by doing the foregoing we can actually make music sound as it did to Bach or Mozart or Bellini, we are fooling ourselves.

There is no way to know just how Corelli played the violin. There is no way to imagine the infinite variety of individual instrument-playing styles existing in Corelli's time. There is no way to know how much Corelli would have liked the playing of any musician in particular, in his day or since. There is no way to know what any musician of Corelli's time would have liked to be able to do on his instrument if his instrument had been capable of it. There is, in short, no way to know that our efforts to make music like the musicians in Corelli's - or anyone else's - time actually result in playing or singing that anyone then would have recognized as "theirs." But we can be virtually certain that if Corelli were to come back and listen to us, he would have a few laughs and say "No! No! No! Not like _that!_ Like _this!"_

"Authenticity" must forever elude us. Even the practitioners of "period" performance style admit this.

The most important thing in musical performance, to which all other factors are subordinate, is that music be made meaningful to the people who hear it.

Romantic opera on period instruments? Sure. But don't imagine that you're making it sound the way it sounded to Bellini - or that Bellini was even satisfied with the way it sounded to Bellini.
If I had to choose between an orchestra full of old instruments trying to sound "authentic" and Callas portraying Norma, you could just ship your old instruments back to the museum.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> "Authenticity" must forever elude us. Even the practitioners of "period" performance style admit this.
> 
> The most important thing in musical performance, to which all other factors are subordinate, is that music be made meaningful to the people who hear it.


Well said! It seems to me that nowadays much of the dogmatism about HIP comes from commentators rather than performers. I remember it being very different in the 70s and 80s when there was a lot of uncompromising vitriol betwen the over-earnest HIP movement and a somewhat reactionary 'old-guard' but this seems a lot less evident in recnt years (though it still exists)


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Well I do like to support my opinions with evidence where it exists rather than make statements like "_There are fortepianists today (such as Bilson, Tan, Immerseel, Brautigam, etc) who would tell you you're completely incorrect to think a fortepiano isn't capable of 100% ideally expressing Beethoven's works._" without any quotes or citations; ie only your assertions.


I wouldn't describe



> "sonata that will give pianists something to do played 50 years hence"


as being proof of anything other than that Beethoven thought his music might be played a few years hence, Don.

Steady on, lad.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

superhorn said:


> Raefus Authenticus, the "massive differences " you cite are in the instruments of the baroque and classical periods; I most certainly can hear them . But once you get into the time of Wagne and beyond, there is less and less difference .
> As I said, I'm not opposed to period instruments per se, and I have enjoyed quite of few performances on them , and have quite a few in my CD collection . But I still have no objection to the use of modern instruments , and I'm still skeptical as to how "authentic" the period instrument performances of the last several decades are . I repeat - we have absolutely no way of knowing what long dead composers would have thought of the performances on period instruments by Norrington, Gardiner, Hogwood, Leonhardt, et al .However, some period instrument performances, particularly the gut strings, sound awful to my ears . A nasal, pinched, wheezing sound . I'd rather hear chalk squeaking on a chalkboard !
> And we can't say that Bach would have disliked hearing his keyboard works played on a modern piano , or that Mozart would have disliked the modern valved horn , or that Beethoven would have disliked hearing his symphonies played by Solti and the Chicago symphony ,or that Rossini, Bellini and Donizetti would have disliked hearing the Met or Covent Garden orchestra, or La Scala today playing their operas . We shouldn't be putting worlds into the mouths of long dead composers , period .


Your comments are fairly made, superhorn.

I smiled at your description of the way period instruments sound to you (gut strings, etc). I totally understand. I have friends who say the same things. Personally, I loath the homogenous, stodgy, bland sounds of modern instruments. But then, beauty is in the ear of the hearer.

By the way, I wouldn't say I'm putting words in the mouths of dead composers. What I would say is they loved the music and instruments of their time; that much is known. To use modern instruments is to go outside what we know of them and their music.

Finally, I do think you should listen to The New Queens Hall Orchestra's recordings of Wagner, Vaughan Willams and Holst on early 20th Century instruments. The sound is very different to modern day instruments. Also look at what Anima Eterna have done with Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov and Debussy, and what Les Siecles are doing with Saint-Saens, Stravinsky, Liszt and Dukas. Again, nothing like modern instruments. Clear, articulated, colourful, etc.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for interrupting the torrent of presumptuous dogmatism pouring out of this thread with a little sanity and common sense.
> 
> The use of period instruments is, by and large, a fine idea, and written sources, as well as the structure of the old instruments themselves, can guide us toward a manner of playing which may bring us closer to performing styles of the past.
> 
> ...


Although I disagree with half of what you wrote, I think you expressed it beautifully.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I wouldn't describe
> 
> as being proof of anything other than that Beethoven thought his music might be played a few years hence, Don.
> 
> Steady on, lad.


I'm pretty sure Beethoven had ego enough to think *all* his music would be played far into the future.
So why single this work (op 106) out?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> I'm pretty sure Beethoven had ego enough to think *all* his music would be played far into the future.
> So why single this work (op 106) out?


Oops, Don. What happened to: 


> Well I do like to support my opinions with evidence where it exists rather than make statements like "There are fortepianists today (such as Bilson, Tan, Immerseel, Brautigam, etc) who would tell you you're completely incorrect to think a fortepiano isn't capable of 100% ideally expressing Beethoven's works." without any quotes or citations; ie only your assertions.


?

Sounds to me like you're assuming rather than knowing...


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Oops, Don. What happened to:
> 
> ?
> 
> Sounds to me like you're assuming rather than knowing...


OK this is definitely the last post I make to this thread as we've been off topic for some time now - when's the last time opera was mentioned?

Neither of us is in a position to "know" Beethoven's mind, however from the quotations I've given such as "It is and remains an inadequate instrument." and "[a] sonata that will give pianists something to do played 50 years hence"
I *assume* Beethoven viewed the piano as a developing instrument and had no problem with the idea of his music being played on later versions.

You _*assume*_ the opposite.

He himself never played Op 106 in performance and few pianists tackled the challenges of this great work before the last decades of the nineteenth century. 
Modern scholarship - such as 'Beethoven the Pianist - Cambridge University Press' seems to support my assumption rather than yours.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> OK this is definitely the last post I make to this thread as we've been off topic for some time now - when's the last time opera was mentioned?
> 
> Neither of us is in a position to "know" Beethoven's mind, however from the quotations I've given such as "It is and remains an inadequate instrument." and "[a] sonata that will give pianists something to do played 50 years hence"
> I *assume* Beethoven viewed the piano as a developing instrument and had no problem with the idea of his music being played on later versions.
> ...


Hahaha! Here is the simple truth, matey: Beethoven wrote Op.106 for a fortepiano; that means he composed it on one. Also, modern fortepianists seem to have no trouble 'tackling' the "challenges of this great work".

Fortepiano is the instrument, my 'friend'.


----------

