# Would you enjoy listening to Baroque music in the strict historical context?



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Imagine you would be able to listen Baroque opera/cantata/instrumental works in the most strict historical context, exactly as it was in 18th century. I am not speaking about a HIP (Historically Informed Performance) practice, I am going even further, with all strict rules of the period: the use of hand-made instruments in 18th century (no modern instruments allowed or the use of other instruments than the ones for which the composition was made for), male soprano/sopranist castrated to sing castrato/soprano roles when applicable in opera and church services, no women allowed to sing in church services/sacred vocal works but instead soprano boy's and boy's choirs, and the period's dressing and buildings/scenarios.

Given that information, would you enjoy listening to Baroque music/works in the strict historical context with all the restrictions? I've put a poll, feel free to participate and express your opinion.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

No. In 15 letters or more: no.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Banning women from participating is icky. Castrating someone is barbaric. Wigs, face powder full of lead, and inferior quality instruments are distracting. I think I would not be inclined to "enjoy the music".


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I value both historical and artistic aspects, but as I've said before, when it comes to art and specifically music, we have no way of knowing "what the composer would have wanted" in performance unless we have personally heard it from the composer. Period. It's not like Bach, preparing for a performance of the St. Matthew Passion, explicitly said, "Nope, no women allowed! I'm only going to allow 15-person choirs (or whatever number was the custom) because anything else would be going beyond what the score calls for." No, Bach was an intrepid adventurer and artist, and he certainly would have taken advantage of more advanced resources had he had access to them. Same with the idea that his keyboard music should only be performed on the harpsichord because that's all he had in his day - notwithstanding the fact that he was at least familiar with the piano in his last years, I think it's safe to say that if he had access to an instrument with infinitely better dynamic and tonal control/expressivity, he would have used it. The limitations of his time should not be taken to mean _his_ preferences, and I think that if we were able to teleport him into today's world and have him sample both Klemperer and Gardiner's St. Matthews, he would not have a preference but simply be bowled over that his music is still held in such high esteem today. And yes, I would perhaps be interested in going back in time to see how it was originally performed just in the name of science, not as any sort of guideline for how we should do it today, obviously!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Not at all. Maybe it's because of the "imprinting" from my youth. But I really prefer my Bach as realized by Stokowski, Calliet, Raff. Mahler, Elgar, and even Walter/Wendy Carlos. Sacrilege maybe, but that's me. Bach's genius always transcends their arrangements anyway.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I don't know why anyone would want that. Would they want to go back to the 18th century and practice the strict health practices in place?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't know. I think hundreds of years of artistic interpretations and reinterpretations, plus hundreds of years of culling out the bad pieces, leaves us with an all-around better listening experience today.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

I'd like an option for: I'd like to experience it to see what it was like. Seriously, wouldn't everyone really like to experience that? HIP is an informed best guess/investigation and I personally don't consider artistry and history to be mutually exclusive concepts in this discussion.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

No—we perform the music, not reenact performance from the past. Often with a modern approach we are able to even better express the music. Modern instruments can even more totally express the music with better dynamics etc. The music exists beyond its practical realization, just as the Well-Tempered Clavier lives beyond the harpsichord or clavichord. A strict historical approach makes the music into a kind of museum piece from the past, when in actuality the music is simply music.


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

I'm a big fan of HIP but I also like e.g. Mozart by Böhm. So I guess I maybe wouldn't enjoy so much the music itself (I suppose problems with intonation and noise around), but because I'm interested in history, it would certainly be an experience I would like to (in the name of science, as aptly written above). And who knows, perhaps my expectations are wrong and I would be able to (even from an artistic point of view) enjoy such a concert, although I think don't value history over artistic aspects...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

If I was born in the 18th century and of the right class, had managed to survive into adulthood, then probably yes, very much.


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

No. I find this historical period dull. Most of its arts do nothing for me. Hate wigs and loathe Louis Quinze furniture. The music is spectacular, but that alone isn't enough to make me want to live there. If you're offering a day trip, we can talk.


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

But the idea is to be in the hypothetical situation in which you were able to spend a short period of time witnessing a musical event with the same practices as 18th century, not living permanently there or abandon our lives to live in that time. In my case, yes, I would love to have this opportunity, to know how Vivaldi performed its own concertos or to finally discover how many singers, and choir sizes, JS Bach had and how a choir of boys performed, as well as how people of that time considered arts in respect of our times. 

There have been interesting discussions about this topic: How good could have been a composer performing its music compared to our modern players? We'll never know but a good hypothesis is that a musician of that period is likely to perform much better than today's performers. Why? Because a musician of that time spent his entire life to compose and play music, likely everyday, 12 or more hours a day. They even didn't know the sense or the concept of holidays, probably besides Sunday, a day dedicated to the Lord. There were no distractions, life was harder. Today performers have lot of distractions and leisure time compared to a 18th century musician/composer/player.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

We can't know what authentic should sound like but some recordings done in the name of HIP have been revelatory. It isn't about technical proficiency so much as providing musical insights. Many of the early Harnoncourt Bach recordings are my favourites even after hundreds of hearings. There are, though, also many HIP recordings where the generic HIP does nothing to rescue dull and unimaginative performances.

Also, I find few of those recordings done before HIP to be listenable. There are just a few very good ones - but then the same is probably true of HIP recordings so perhaps nothing has changed.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

As the only guy who voted yes, I just want to say I studied History for my degree and I'd jump at the chance to go back in time to meet the likes of Bach, Monteverdi, Vivaldi or Handel. (As I would to be able to have a chat with George Washington, Isaac Newton, Horatio Nelson, Benjamin *Dis*raeli or the Duke of *Wel*lington!) Just by way of explanation, you understand :lol:

Edited to add: Within minutes, it appears I am no longer alone on this point! Hurrah!!


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

No, I value artistic aspects over history, simple as that.


----------



## The3Bs (Apr 1, 2020)

No, for most of the reasons pointed by an ever increasing number of people in the thread...
1- I like HIP in what is possible, however, and above all:
2- I like musical interpretation freedom


----------



## ZeR0 (Apr 7, 2020)

While I wouldn't be against the idea, I ultimately had to vote no because I do think I value artistic aspects over history. With that being said, it would certainly be fascinating to experience music as it was during the Baroque period.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

It would be necessary to try to replicate the genuine context as much as possible, otherwise the taste will go wrong under overtly liberal cultural influences. To be honest, baroque music need to be dictated by some enlightened ideologies that are historically friendly, like conservativism, even the continuous theological education. It explains why there are bad artists they are probably atheist themself. Not only instrumentally need to be historically loyal, the people who are involved in the making should also be historically friendly at least, must not be hostile to the theological context of the music. Once in a while, everyboday can listen and enjoy Baroque, *but there must be some people who are loyal to death to the historical, and cultural, theological contexts of Baroque to keep it alive and everlasting. *


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

I agree with "allegro con brio". Bach was open mind to the advances and developments of EVERYTHING for the benefit and glory of the music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

JSBach85 said:


> But the idea is to be in the hypothetical situation in which you were able to spend a short period of time witnessing a musical event with the same practices as 18th century, not living permanently there or abandon our lives to live in that time. In my case, yes, I would love to have this opportunity, to know how Vivaldi performed its own concertos or to finally discover how many singers, and choir sizes, JS Bach had and how a choir of boys performed, as well as how people of that time considered arts in respect of our times.
> 
> There have been interesting discussions about this topic: How good could have been a composer performing its music compared to our modern players? We'll never know but a good hypothesis is that a musician of that period is likely to perform much better than today's performers. *Why? Because a musician of that time spent his entire life to compose and play music, likely everyday, 12 or more hours a day.* They even didn't know the sense or the concept of holidays, probably besides Sunday, a day dedicated to the Lord. There were no distractions, life was harder. Today performers have lot of distractions and leisure time compared to a 18th century musician/composer/player.


I would like to be able to listen to a historical performance too, (preferably multiple performances) to get an idea of the sound and approaches. But don't advocate going back to things like castrating singers. There is some evidence the standards of performance were actually lower, because often musicians didn't spend as much time rehearsing specific pieces before performing them. It is possible the difference between the average amateur and professional was actually smaller back then, this is what Charles Rosen has suggested. There is documented evidence of large scale Bach pieces (and things like Haydn symphonies even) being performed after just one rehearsal (!). Even if the musicians were on average better (which is possible) its not likely the performances would sound as refined and polished with such little rehearsal.

Also your hypothesis that professional musicians back then spent 12 hours or more a day 7 days a week on music seems unlikely. J.S. Bach for example simply had too many responsibilities outside of just music. I'm sure he practiced a lot, but not quite that much.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

To me HIP refers to the music exclusively, meaning period instruments and authentic scoring as well as informed interpretation. I am well aware, that there may be several options within these frames. 

However candle lights and wigs and other extra-musical scenery play no part in it. And HIP-sters are generally not that absurdly radical. Why should I understand the music better if I the musicians wore wigs? If so we would never be able to understand the music only when listening to CDs at home. BTW I use to close my eyes when listening to music, so all the same I wouldn't see the scenery.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

dizwell said:


> As the only guy who voted yes, I just want to say I studied History for my degree and I'd jump at the chance to go back in time to meet the likes of Bach, Monteverdi, Vivaldi or Handel. (As I would to be able to have a chat with George Washington, Isaac Newton, Horatio Nelson, Benjamin *Dis*raeli or the Duke of *Wel*lington!) Just by way of explanation, you understand :lol:
> 
> Edited to add: Within minutes, it appears I am no longer alone on this point! Hurrah!!


Yeah… I'd love to jump into a time machine, attending an organ recital by Bach and then, afterwards, being able to say to him: well darn, bro, you played that prelude much too fast! :lol:

I'm not gonna vote in this poll though. For sure it's a nice idea but, to me, it contains just a bit too much of the idea that historic and artistic values/aspects are kinda opposed to each other.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

This is a strawman of the HIP position.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

No. There's no reason interpreters today should have to put themselves under the same constraints that Bach probably hated. Also, there's no way anybody can tell me with much certainty what a performance of orchestral music in 1720 sounded like. Some HIP I like; most of it sounds wispy and too fast.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

This poll is a bit of a logical fallacy. One may enjoy both.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

About JS Bach could be welcoming the piano myth, google it, JS Bach never approved the forte-piano, he said the fortepiano can not play good counterpoint. JS Bach is not your liberal man, he was clearly very conservative and more so than even Georg Telemann and Handel, if you said yourself a Bach lover and still say he was pro-piano and pro-classical then I can not see how you love him.

Harnoncourt probably wanted to distinguish himself from Gustav Leonhardt with whom he collaborated the excelling set of complete cantatas for Teldec, so he applied his mozartistic flavor into his later interpretations.


----------

