# Anyone else getting a little tired of "Historically Informed Performances"?



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

When I started out listening to classical music I was not hearing "Historically Informed Performances" (From now on referred to as HIP).

Bernstein, Klemperer, Walter, Fricasy, Bohm, etc...

Then when HIP's became all the rage I admit, I jumped on the band wagon and became very much in favor of hearing how the works "supposedly" sounded back when they were written.

Now I find I am coming full circle.

It seems that every performance has to be HIP now and no one is willing to take a different approach. A few years ago it was a "big deal" when Barenboim recorded Beethoven's 9 Symphonies in the Old Traditional, Big Orchestra, Germanic Romantic style that was so common many years ago. Where HIP used to be the outcast, now the Big Orchestra, classic style is the outcast and part of me feels like we've lost something.

There was a certain "Art" in the interpretation of someone like say Furtwangler. Being able to take points in the music and draw them out, or speed them up to create or build tension or drama in the right spots was truly an art form.

I was watching "The Legacy Of Karl Richter" the other day and they were talking about how he never performed the same work, the same way twice. Karl said that each day he felt something different about a certain work or during a certain passage and wanted to find new ways to interpret and express it and basically he would be washed up when he had no more ideas. 

I get the same feeling from Glenn Gould where he made his comment on Mozart's Piano Sonatas and his interpretations. How he would say "Hollywood would play it this way, I'm going to play it this way" and that he hoped maybe people had become "sufficiently jaded" by hearing these works performed the same way for hundreds of years that they would be open to a totally new interpretation.

I think that's where I am now. I always understood that about Glenn Gould, but I never really thought about it larger scale works until now.

Anyway, just some thoughts I've been having lately.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

My sense has always been, HIP or not, a performance either works or it doesn't. I first thought of that about 40 years ago at a performance of Bach's-minor Mass by Karl Richter's Munich Bach forces, when the then current rage was Harnoncourt's HIP Vienna Concentus Musicus interpretations. Richter's Bach was magisterial whether or not it was PC for its time.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

While HIP's are my preference, you're right that there is a certain freshness in hearing a different interpretation.

Sometimes, though, I feel a greater force from a smaller ensemble. Harnoncourt's recording of Schubert's Symphonies is extraordinary and loses nothing as opposed to a fully-loaded modern orchestra and interpretive style.

While I adore Klemperer's recordings, and prefer his Beethoven cycle to all others, it isn't truly historically informed, is it? Especially since Beethoven's tempo markings are more than usually fast. Few conductors would even consider following Beethoven's original markings, so I guess Klemperer has no real claim to HIP.

I can't understand people who would, if they could, force all recordings and performances to be HIP. Likewise, I can't understand people who would, if they could, force all recordings and performance not to be HIP. Live and let live; let everyone enjoy what they enjoy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Agree. Sometimes I want Gardiner, sometimes it's Walter. Why complain about having the choice?


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

I do not like those HIP oboes in Mozart. I was on a concert with reconstruction oboes used in Mozart's 41st Symphony. They were way too loud, or perhaps their timbre just did not let them blend with other instruments.

Heheh, I get curious connotations with this abbreviation, HIP. 



> Hello There and Welcome to the exciting world of Hip. This is a new departure in language instruction for English-speaking people who want to talk to - and be understood by: jazz musicians, hipsters, beatniks, juvenile delinquents and the criminal fringe.


:lol:

Best regards, Dr


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Why would anyone get tired of HIP or not HIP approaches? That's why we have BOTH.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

HIP or no, I want conductors who create performances imbued with their own personality. There aren't many of that type of conductor left.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Remarkable. 6 posts and the subject is already beaten to a frazzle. There must be a deep philosophical approach in there _somewhere_.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Remarkable. 6 posts and the subject is already beaten to a frazzle. There must be a deep philosophical approach in there _somewhere_.


Not really. I have been taught to play the violin in both ways.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

The farther back you go in music history, HIP becomes more important.

A friend of mine on the faculty of a university was asked to sit in on a student defending his thesis on Heinrich Schutz. One of the complaints in his thesis was, the trombones tended to overwhelm the voices, to which my friend, a trombonist, chimed in, "You _are_ aware that Schutz wrote for sackbuts"? There is a difference in such things.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

Quality and context matter most to me. I've found most HIP (love the acronym!!) performances to be very well prepared and gripping; sometimes, I miss the beauty of sound found in a modern instrument performance, but at the very least I appreciate the tremendous effort that wind players take to master the finicky period instruments. Hogwood is one of my faves in this arena. Of course, nothing substitutes for a nice Bohm Mozart once in a while.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I’m not bored with HIP at all, I came to this approach to the repertory in the early 1980’s with the Academy of Ancient Music and the English Concert.
Since then it’s been exciting to see and hear new ensembles crop up with their varying approaches, I don’t find these groups sounding the same in anyway.
Some of their takes on a particular work can sound startlingly different. 
The whole historical movement is alive very vibrant and constantly evolving especially with the rediscovery of forgotten works by lesser know composers.
I can enjoy some older performances on modern instruments but for me it never quite gets to the heart of the music compared to a historically informed one.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm a both ways man, myself. My only dogma is my ears and heart, and they refuse to follow a program, it seems.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm a lot more favorably disposed toward HIP performances than I used to be years ago when they were
the latest rage and so many people were raving about them. I think the performances have just gotten better on the whole, or I've just gotten used ot them .
I wasn't opposed to the attempt to recreate the sound and style of the distant past ; I just felt that in too many cases, the proverbial baby had been thrown out with the bathwater . And I realized that nobody has ever heard what the music of the past sounded like and that what we were hearing was what it MIGHT have sounded like ,not necessarily what it actually sounded like, since a time machine has yet to be invented .
But still ,it's actually refreshing to go back to recordings that don't use period instruments ,including ones by the likes of Marriner, Colin Davis and Raymond leppard which are not really HIP but avoid the excesses of 
some old fashioned performances .
Always remember the words of the eminent but controversial musicologist and critic Richard Taruskin,
whom I do not always agree with by any means - "Instruments don't make music - people do !"
What thi s means is that using period instruments and dutifully going through the motions of what is currently considered stylistically correct do not guarantee anything . It's the musicianship of the performancers that make the difference .


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I have not tired of HIP because I haven't restricted myself to HIP. If it sounds good, it is good. Purists can sneer to their hearts' content.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

The idea of realising the composer's intentions as exactly as possible was always around. The difference with HIP is that it seeks to recreate the context of the composer's time. That is; it recreates those things that the composer wouldn't have thought about, his unthinking assumptions about the music ensemble. Things the composer didn't make a conscious choice about. In this sense it can't claim to be closer to realising the composer's _intentions_ (not that this is always desirable), at least in as much as the composer didn't make these choices consciously. Mozart didn't write for a fortepiano rather than a modern steinway - he wrote for it because it was the best instrument of the time. Similarly he didn't write for a harpsichord because it was an antiquated instrument considered inferior to the fortepiano.

Certain things HIP seems not to be so keen on remembering. They are far from consistent regarding repeats (my usual complaint), and also I would like to see an 'authentic' modern concert which lasts 4 hours or however long they used to last. When I leave a concert, usually after little over an hour of music I sometimes feel like it was just getting started. There seems to be a certain amount of pandering to modern audiences in this matter, not that there is any less in non-HIP concerts. Probably just as well given how many problems that they are having financially, although advertising a long concert as a kind of historical gimmick might well actually sell quite well.

Overall, I think HIP is a good movement to have had as it has opened up options in performance - and I think it is good to have recordings which are as close to how it would have sounded in the composer's time as possible - but I am glad that it is less fanatically supported than it appears to have been in previous times (me not having been alive to see them).


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

The point to be shown is that those composers were very bad, you should like the openminded "Rock Stars" of today instead... just kidding!


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

My answer to the question posed in the title is no. I might see HIP as a problem, even being a fan, if it were absolutely dominant, but the moment even of its relative dominance is clearly past, right? In Beethoven, we are apparently shifting back to Big Band Beethoven (Vanska, Beethoven For All, etc.), but one that has perhaps internalized certain lessons of period performance scholarship. In Baroque and early music music, HIP _is_ still relatively dominant I suppose (and a good thing too; does anybody want to go back to big band Brandenburgs???) but hardly to the exclusion of other approaches: one of my favorite Bach recordings of the past few years was Julia Fischer's non-period disc of Bach violin concertos, and of course Bach on modern piano shows no sign of going away. So I think complaining about HIP when there is much non-HIP stuff out there seems unnecessary.

I certainly think the period performance movement yielded some great triumphs (esp. in Baroque and early music, symphonic literature, and string quartets--I can think of no recordings of the past two decades that surpass the Quatuor Mosaiques' Haydn in aesthetic excellence and importance) and many misfires (I never met a fortepiano recording I really liked) but I don't think its work is over: we still lack a complete gut-string Beethoven quartet cycle, for example, incredible as that sounds.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

As an aside to this^^ I have noticed a tendency in me feel and understand the inner voices of a baroque keyboard work when performed on piano rather than the jangly noisy harpsichord. This is partially due to the recording techniques -- sometimes I think the engineers stick microphones directly on the plectrums getting lots of pops and thumps that are very distracting -- but also because the timbre of the harpsichord doesn't lend itself to my hearing all the voices. On the other hand, the harpsichord is lacy and delicate in the context of a continuo in a concerto and is unequaled for that role. 

We should let our ears decide which approach is best in the context of both the piece and the performers.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I often wonder if people actually read the original post...lol.

I wasn't bashing HIP or saying it's a bad thing. I wasn't saying there shouldn't be anymore HIP or HIP inspired recordings.

I still listen to both kinds of recordings and yes it's wonderful to have a choice, but my feelings were more along the lines that "it seems like every modern recording now HAS to be HIP or HIP inspired".

As Bigshot mentioned there doesn't seem to be any New, Young or Upcoming Conductors who are willing to put their own spin on things or tread new water.

That's more of where I'm coming from. 

If you want something with a little "Artistic Interpretation" you have to listen to "Older" recordings because it seems like everyone these days is so concerned about following every letter and every mark of a composer to a perfect degree.

For an example: If you want something like a "Furtwangler" inspired Beethoven reading in modern sound, you can't get one. You have to listen to Mono recordings from the 40's and 50's. 

Conductors today aren't willing to take that kind of Artistic License...


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Real, I did read your post and understand your point of view is a nuanced one. Notwithstanding, as I said, my answer to the question in the title is no.

As to your claim that there are no conductors willing to break out and do their own thing instead of slavishly following composer's intentions--(1) I don't know that this is true (cf. Pletnev's Beethoven cycle, for instance, if you want a modern cycle that is wildly idiosyncratic) and (2) even if it were true, I don't see what that would have to do with HIP. OK, so Vanska seems to be strongly influenced by HIP in his Beethoven cycle, but what did HIP have to do with giving us, say, Dudamel, Petrenko or Alsop, to name just three "up-and-comers" who get a lot of press and are recording prolifically?

I'd also reject your premise that HIP = slavish devotion to composer's intentions. Some of the most interpretively interesting (even wayward?) playing--improvisation, extreme tempi, etc.--comes out of the period instrument crowd: cf. Jordi Savall, Fabio Biondi, some Harnoncourt, etc. HIP is a label covering a wide range of "historical" practices--use of period instruments, use of historically-appropriate tunings, literal observance of composer's metronome markings (cf. Norrington), restoring improvisation and ornaments (cf. Schiff's Beethoven sonata cycle), etc. etc.--not all of which are adopted by all HIP performers and some of which are mutually inconsistent. So I think you are painting with a very broad brush.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


> Real, I did read your post and understand your point of view is a nuanced one. Notwithstanding, as I said, my answer to the question in the title is no.
> 
> As to your claim that there are no conductors willing to break out and do their own thing instead of slavishly following composer's intentions--(1) I don't know that this is true (cf. Pletnev's Beethoven cycle, for instance, if you want a modern cycle that is wildly idiosyncratic) and (2) even if it were true, I don't see what that would have to do with HIP. OK, so Vanska seems to be strongly influenced by HIP in his Beethoven cycle, but what did HIP have to do with giving us, say, Dudamel, Petrenko or Alsop, to name just three "up-and-comers" who get a lot of press and are recording prolifically?
> 
> I'd also reject your premise that HIP = slavish devotion to composer's intentions. Some of the most interpretively interesting (even wayward?) playing--improvisation, extreme tempi, etc.--comes out of the period instrument crowd: cf. Jordi Savall, Fabio Biondi, some Harnoncourt, etc. HIP is a label covering a wide range of "historical" practices--use of period instruments, use of historically-appropriate tunings, literal observance of composer's metronome markings (cf. Norrington), restoring improvisation and ornaments (cf. Schiff's Beethoven sonata cycle), etc. etc.--not all of which are adopted by all HIP performers and some of which are mutually inconsistent. So I think you are painting with a very broad brush.


You are correct. I am using a large brush because I speak in general terms. I'm a general guy.

Yes, Mikhail Pletnev is an extremely idiosyncratic conductor who has recorded some older works. So there's 1 out of How Many?

Dudamel has recorded a few Beethoven symphonies, but Petrenko & Alsop haven't really recorded anything older than Brahms or Dvorak that I know of so not a big need for HIP ideals.

But, let's take out the Artistic Interpretation all together.

In "general", Most recordings now are adopting something from HIP when doing older works, and by older I mean Beethoven and back or The Baroque to Classical period. Again HIP being a "general" term.

Whether it's smaller orchestras or faster tempos or period instruments. Not everyone can have a period instrument obviously, so not every recording is period.

But you have modern instruments adopting faster tempos and then scaling down their orchestras to play Mozart, Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, etc.

So lets ask this...How many recordings from say 2010 till today of a Mozart Symphony, can you find being recorded with a modern orchestra (around 100 musicians) versus recordings made with a Chamber Orchestra of like 50 or less?

There was a time when modern sized orchestras were playing Classic & Baroque works in the concert hall. Now, "in general" they don't.

So out of 100 recordings maybe I get 1 or 2 that have a full modern size orchestra. Why?


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

realdealblues said:


> You are correct. I am using a large brush because I speak in general terms. I'm a general guy.
> 
> ...
> 
> So out of 100 recordings maybe I get 1 or 2 that have a full modern size orchestra. Why?


OK, then. So you admit your premises are lazy generalizations, but continue to argue from them anyway, cuz "aw shucks, I'm just a guy." That is where the conversation ends for me.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


> OK then, well that is where the conversation ends for me.


And that's why this bored is so entertaining to me :lol:


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

realdealblues said:


> And that's why this *bored *is so entertaining to me :lol:


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


>


OH NO!!! A typo  Oh the humanity!


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> You are correct. I am using a large brush because I speak in general terms. I'm a general guy.
> 
> Yes, Mikhail Pletnev is an extremely idiosyncratic conductor who has recorded some older works. So there's 1 out of How Many?
> 
> ...


Might part of this be due to the fact that it is a lot easier to set up a smaller chamber orchestra of 50 or less, compared to a modern orchestra of 100? Cheaper as well? So you would get a lot more springing up? I don't know if that is true. But it would make sense to me. And you are also seeing more recording labels out there willing to record those smaller groups, so the scene is no longer dominated by a few at the top.

I think basically what we are talking about is a paradigm shift. Were those people who lived during the transition from the smaller orchestra to the modern orchestra equally as dismayed by the changes?

I suspect, also, that the "democratization" of music has a large part in this. If someone knows better, please tell me, but I am assuming that prior to modern times, the average classical music enthusiast could not readily obtain the actual sheet music to study for themselves to even determine with how much affinity the conductors were adhering to what the composer had written. Now that such resources are relatively easy to procure, has there been a greater demand for adherence to what was written?

In my mind, I liken it to the effect that the publication of the Bible in the vernacular, and not just in Latin, had on the proliferation of new ideas regarding Christianity, whereas before the direction of the Catholic Church was overwhelmingly dominant.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Might part of this be due to the fact that it is a lot easier to set up a smaller chamber orchestra of 50 or less, compared to a modern orchestra of 100? Cheaper as well? So you would get a lot more springing up? I don't know if that is true. But it would make sense to me. And you are also seeing more recording labels out there willing to record those smaller groups, so the scene is no longer dominated by a few at the top.
> 
> I think basically what we are talking about is a paradigm shift. Were those people who lived during the transition from the smaller orchestra to the modern orchestra equally as dismayed by the changes?
> 
> ...


I won't deny the expense and ease of recording smaller orchestras may play a part, which leads me to wonder when is the chamber orchestra Mahler Symphony going to come along?

But I think some of it has come from the aspect that it's more "historically correct".

And it's not just recording. If I go see a local symphonic concert the same thing is occurring. If they put Mozart and Tchaikovsky on a double bill. They will play Mozart with a small orchestra, then take an intermission and setup more chairs and then bring out the rest of the people to play Tchaikovsky.

As to the sheet music. A lot of that depended on where you lived. I read an interview with Ashkenazy where he got to leave Russia and he came back with some sheet music that was banned in Russia and he was the envy of all his peers. So even in the last 50 years some of that was true.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Well I agree with Realdealblues, except I do think that this slavish 'HIP-ness' is less dominant than before (maybe someone older will correct me).

Personally I find period instruments almost without exception inferior to their modern counterparts (except the harpsichord compared to the piano, in which case the case I think is more nuanced). However I like the ideas that the HIP movement has brought to light.

I would like to point you to some of the complete Haydn cycles out there. I only own the Adam Fischer one which is a sort of moderate HIP as I understand it (I think he uses modern instruments). In the earlier symphonies in particular (which in order of recording he did later) he takes some significant liberties. Look at symphony 39 for example, with the exaggerated pauses in the first (and practically inserted into the second) movement(s). It works marvellously. Thomas Fey's recordings are completely eccentric all the way through. I only own three symphonies conducted by him, principally for No.44. Even a listen on the Amazon preview shows the extreme tempos he uses - as well as significant rubatos!

I have little interest in modern Beethoven cycles however. I don't have any (Simon Rattle is the most modern I have) but from what I have heard they seem fairly bland compared to Furtwangler or Toscanini. Perhaps it is because Haydn is a little more niche that there is more variation in the recordings of him (particularly earlier symphonies). I have heard good things about other performances as well, that aren't complete (e.g. Pinnock) though they might be a little more standard.

So yes, I agree that a little bit more individuality would be better, though it's nice to have 'standard' versions too (like Karajan usually gives). However individuality is often frowned on. I see reviewers often criticise performances on the basis of being 'mannered', 'unfaithful' - epitomised in the phrase "You play Bach your way, I'll play it his way". This seems like a very dangerous idea, a slavish faithfulness to an imagined set of intentions by a composer long dead and unable to tell us for himself (or herself I guess) what they are. I think it is a performer's job to play it whatever way they think is best.



DrMike said:


> In my mind, I liken it to the effect that the publication of the Bible in the vernacular, and not just in Latin, had on the proliferation of new ideas regarding Christianity, whereas before the direction of the Catholic Church was overwhelmingly dominant.


Without meaning to divert the thread, I'm just going to point out that Latin as an elite language was the preserve of the Christian West, not the East which used local languages - Greek was the local language for most of that area, and when the Slavs began to be converted by Sts Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century one of the first things they did was translate the Bible into a Slavic language. Orthodoxy, from century 1 to 21, is not known for its fondness for new ideas (though traditionalist Catholics may disagree with me)


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> I won't deny the expense and ease of recording smaller orchestras may play a part, which leads me to wonder when is the chamber orchestra Mahler Symphony going to come along?
> 
> But I think some of it has come from the aspect that it's more "historically correct".
> 
> ...


Well, Schoeberg did arrange Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde for chamber, and some consider DLvdE a symphony. Does that count?  But in the case of Mahler, the large orchestra IS HIP. So for a disciple of HIP thinking, playing Mahler with a chamber orchestra would be just as wrong as performing Bach's Brandenburg Concertos with a large modern orchestra.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


> OK, then. So you admit your premises are lazy generalizations, but continue to argue from them anyway, cuz "aw shucks, I'm just a guy." That is where the conversation ends for me.


My generalizations have nothing to do with "Laziness".

You must be a Republican...or "just incase" you don't live in the US, the equivalent in your country of residence.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Regarding appropriate size of orchestras for HIP, we know of at least one occaision where Mozart was able to get together a very large orchestra to perform a concert including one of his symphonies , complete with doubled winds for balance , and in a letter to his father Leopold, he was absolutely delighted to have this many musicians ! 
I don't think there's any lack of conductors today who are highly individual in their interpretive approach ,
including ones who do not conduct HIP orchestras or rarely do . I'm frankly getting tired of critics and fans who are always longing for the "golden age " of conducting, or opera isnging etc. The golden age is NOW !
Of course I have great admiration for the recordings of the great conductors of the past (not al of them of course) . There's no denying th e greatness of Furtwangler, Klemperer, Toscanini, Walter, Monteux,
Mengelberg, Knappertsbusch, Beecham, et al, but Abbado, Muti, Levine, Barenboim, Rattle, Chailly, Gergiev,
Harnoncourt, Maazel, Salonen, Thomas, Dohnanyi, Davis, Eschenbach, Gardiner, Haitink, Jarvi, Jansons,
et al aren't exactly chopped liver (I don't like chopped liver or any kind of liver at all !). 
You would have ot be a dolt to say that these conductors have no individuality and are carbon copies of each other. They're anything but that !
No doubt people 50 years from now will be longing for the "golden age" of classical music too. Things never change .


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

superhorn said:


> Abbado, Muti, Levine, Barenboim, Rattle, Chailly, Gergiev,
> Harnoncourt, Maazel, Salonen, Thomas, Dohnanyi, Davis, Eschenbach, Gardiner, Haitink, Jarvi, Jansons,
> et al aren't exactly chopped liver (I don't like chopped liver or any kind of liver at all !).
> You would have ot be a dolt to say that these conductors have no individuality and are carbon copies of each other. They're anything but that!.


Most of those guys are in their 60's, 70's & 80's...not exactly newbies.

They aren't chopped liver, although a few of them might be fairly bland in a good deal of their recordings.

But you've also mentioned 18 of the more popular conductors of the last 30 years. 
Abbado did some wonderful Brahms. 
Muti did some wonderful Tchaikovsky. 
Jansons did some great Rachmaninov. 
Harnoncourt always has something interesting to say. He's also 83 years old!

Even if we say all 18 of them are full of individuality, for every one of them, there are 100 others making recordings and conducting orchestras flooding the market without trying anything new or only worrying about trying to be overly faithful to the score or time period.

It just seems that the "majority" of the market is aimed in that direction.

I'm not crying for the golden age. I'd like to see more people take a page out of Glenn Gould's book and take a work or "war horse" that has been performed to death and try something with it. Change an Adagio to an Andante. Or an Allegro to Allegretto to create a different feel or mood. Give it a romantic feel or a baroque feel. Something to inject some new life into something rather than worry about orchestra size, or period instruments or exact tempos.

Better yet. I'd like a conductor to make 2 recordings. One by the book and one of his own invention.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

As a numbers game, it doesn't matter to me if 100 recordings have little to distinguish them and 1 does. In that case, I'll have at most two recordings: one of the normal way, and maybe the odd one.

On the other hand, if twenty different artists put out twenty really unique performances of Beethoven's fifth, I'm still only going to have five or six.

So I'm less interested in whether people are finding new ways to perform or record Beethoven's fifth than in whether people are finding new things to record. At this point you're going to have a very hard time selling me another Beethoven's fifth at any price, but if you put out Taneyev's _Oresteia_, you'll have a good claim to about sixty of my own dollars.

I think the artists and recording companies realize this, which is why it's much easier to buy recordings of Mompou or Clemens Non Papa or Zelenka than it was in 1962.

So let's say you're Yuja Wang. Should you really spend much time worrying about whether your Mozart sonatas are HIP or somehow unique or whatever? Or should you be working on Sorabji?


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> My generalizations have nothing to do with "Laziness".
> 
> You must be a Republican...or "just incase" you don't live in the US, the equivalent in your country of residence.


Why? Are you a Democrat?


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Why? Are you a Democrat?


Actually, I'm a Libertarian...but every time I turn on the TV some Republican Congressman is calling me "Lazy" if I don't agree with them, even if I have a job. I was having flashbacks of that because apparently I'm a lazy, hick, simpleton for expressing something in "general" terms. Next thing I know I'll be told "The female body can shut down a pregnancy in the cases of "specific rape" instead of "general rape"...if it wants too".


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I realize that there might be great HIP performances; and I realize that HIP does not require the musicians to lose their personality or vision. Still, I find HIP to be such a revolting idea, philosophically, that I'm not able to look past it to seek out those great performances.

But at the end of the day, what matters is that we have musicians with integrity, vision, and personality.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Hausmusik said:


> I can think of no recordings of the past two decades that surpass the Quatuor Mosaiques' Haydn in aesthetic excellence and importance)...


Thank you Hausmusik, for mentioning Quatuor Mosaiques and praising their performance of Haydn. I listened to some of their recordings and they really are extraordinary. The only recording that I have of Haydn's String Quartets it the Kodaly Quartet's complete rendering. That recording has worked well enough to explore and become familiar with the large oeuvre of Haydn, but I have always hesitated to judge it definitively. Now I think it's high time to obtain better recordings.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Xaltotun said:


> I realize that there might be great HIP performances; and I realize that HIP does not require the musicians to lose their personality or vision. Still, I find HIP to be such a revolting idea, philosophically, that I'm not able to look past it to seek out those great performances.


Revolting how? What philosophy do you think is behind the HIP movement?

I prefer HIP for Baroque and earlier, could take it either way for classical, but prefer contemporary big orchestra performances of anything past 1830 or so (I would say anything Romantic, but Gardiner's Sinfonie Fantastique is excellent and a worthy alternative).


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

I think what we are finding here is that, for the most part, those who enjoy HIP also enjoy more modern practices. It all depends. For baroque and classical, in general I do prefer HIP. However, I love Murray Perahia's recordings of Bach's keyboard works. I also have a mono recording of Bach's violin concertos performed by Yehudi Menuhin that I really enjoy. For classical, I have a mix. For Haydn's symphonies, I enjoy recordings by Pinnock, Jacobs, Hogwood, and Mackerras. But I really enjoy the Kodaly Quartet's recordings of his string quartets, as well as the newer recordings of those by the Takacs Quartet, and I love the 3 volumes of his piano sonatas performed by Marc-Andre Hamelin. Beethoven is one where I love both HIP (Immerseel, Gardiner) and modern (Klemperer, von Karajan, Szell).

HIP is here to stay. But it has not completely taken over. The proliferation of these smaller ensembles - or at least so it seems - I think is mainly due to it being easier to assemble a smaller ensemble, especially in smaller locales, and then with all the different new labels, a lot of these previously unheard of ensembles will get recorded, and not just the major figures.

The point I want to leave off with is that now we have choice. If you like your Beethoven big, then you can find something you like. If you like your Beethoven small, you can fin that too. But in the past, that wasn't possible. I see it as definitely a positive thing. After all, if we are talking about conductors interpreting, isn't HIP merely a conductors choice as to how he/she wants to interpret the piece?

Oh, and for you fans of Quatour Mosaiques, don't forget that they have also done some nice recording of Mozart's string quartets. I have a recording of them performing his K. 464 and K. 465 quartets, which I love.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> Actually, I'm a Libertarian...but every time I turn on the TV some Republican Congressman is calling me "Lazy" if I don't agree with them, even if I have a job. I was having flashbacks of that because apparently I'm a lazy, hick, simpleton for expressing something in "general" terms. Next thing I know I'll be told "The female body can shut down a pregnancy in the cases of "specific rape" instead of "general rape"...if it wants too".


Hmm, it apparently isn't only with classical music that you tend to overgeneralize.


----------



## farmerjohn (Jan 24, 2013)

I am wary of showing too much reverence for the past.

I am convinced that if the likes of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were around today they would be writing for modern instruments including electric guitars and synthesizers and that their music would show the influence of hip hop, reggae, psychedelia and other more recent styles of music. I think they used what they had then because they had to work with what they had. It is worth remembering that in Mozart's day the piano was a new instrument and there were probably a few people then who felt he had betrayed the historic tradition by writing for piano instead of harpischord. This would be analogous to when Dylan swapped his acoustic guitar for an electric and a heckler called him Judas.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I quite enjoy historically informed performance practice of pre-Romantic music. The earlier we go, the more critical it is in terms of intonation, instrumental pitch, tempi, attack, number of players in the band etc. etc. They didn't just happen to be big band vibrato since Monteverdi. But it's the diversity in interpretation today that makes it all so much special for us modern day ears to be listening to different interpretations. That I value most of all.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Regarding appropriate size of orchestras for HIP, we know of at least one occaision where Mozart was able to get together a very large orchestra to perform a concert including one of his symphonies , complete with doubled winds for balance , and in a letter to his father Leopold, he was absolutely delighted to have this many musicians !
> I don't think there's any lack of conductors today who are highly individual in their interpretive approach ,
> including ones who do not conduct HIP orchestras or rarely do . I'm frankly getting tired of critics and fans who are always longing for the "golden age " of conducting, or opera isnging etc. The golden age is NOW !
> Of course I have great admiration for the recordings of the great conductors of the past (not al of them of course) . There's no denying th e greatness of Furtwangler, Klemperer, Toscanini, Walter, Monteux,
> ...


We have been through this many times but on the whole your list of modern conductors is to me pretty boring...Maazel, Rattle ???


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> I realize that there might be great HIP performances; and I realize that HIP does not require the musicians to lose their personality or vision. Still, I find HIP to be such a revolting idea, philosophically, that I'm not able to look past it to seek out those great performances.
> 
> But at the end of the day, what matters is that we have musicians with integrity, vision, and personality.


Surly the music comes first! 
A musician or conductor can impose a bit their personality to a work but often with the case of pre HIP performances the personality of the conductor completely over powered the music.
The HIP movement has largely stripped that away for the good of the music by letting it speak for it's self.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Revolting how? What philosophy do you think is behind the HIP movement?


First of all, the thought that "proper knowledge" about the traditions is more important, or is the road that leads to, a meaningful musical experience. I think intuition should trump knowledge. Second, the thought that we can somehow understand an age of the past in its own terms. I think we cannot, and we should try to understand the past from the perspective of our own time instead. We are not "baroque people" anymore, we are people of our own age, and yes, the ages past can most certainly teach us and grant us new insights into things... but that does not somehow erase the passage of time and all the accumulated changes in thinking and being between a particular time of the past and today. HIP stresses the particular, the detail, the surface, while we should, I think, stress the universal, the meaning, the eternal aspects of classical music... and those can be reached only with a musician's intuition, from his own particular point of view, from the point of view of today. HIP cuts the passage of time between us and the music; we are like in a zoo, ogling a strange animal, instead of being in the same time continuum. I don't want to be an archaeologist or a necrolatrist. I want to hear how the music can connect to me. But, just to clarify, I'm not in favour of bastardising the music with today's fads, either. Today's particulars are particulars as well. What is eternal will shine through, and can be given new life by a true artist. HIP's philosophy is that of fethisism, idol-worship, mistaking the Creation for the Creator.

Actually, I don't mind HIP being a small detail in the whole... a tiny detail that might make the composer's intent more reachable for us... but I'm revolted if it's the overriding principle, the big giant that dwarfs all other, more important aspects of the music.

p.s. I have nothing against HIP fans or moderate forms of HIPpism so I apologise if my words have offended anyone, that was not the intent. I just write in a certain way


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

presto said:


> Surly the music comes first!
> A musician or conductor can impose a bit their personality to a work but often with the case of pre HIP performances the personality of the conductor completely over powered the music.
> The HIP movement has largely stripped that away for the good of the music by letting it speak for it's self.


But that's just it, you see, I don't think that the music can speak for itself without a strong personality of the performing artist.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

presto said:


> Surly the music comes first!
> A musician or conductor can impose a bit their personality to a work but often with the case of pre HIP performances the personality of the conductor completely over powered the music.
> The HIP movement has largely stripped that away for the good of the music by letting it speak for it's self.


That doesn't happen, if it did we would need no conductors.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

moody said:


> That doesn't happen, if it did we would need no conductors.


A lot of works don't need conductors.



Xaltotun said:


> First of all, the thought that "proper knowledge" about the traditions is more important, or is the road that leads to, a meaningful musical experience. I think intuition should trump knowledge. Second, the thought that we can somehow understand an age of the past in its own terms. I think we cannot, and we should try to understand the past from the perspective of our own time instead. We are not "baroque people" anymore, we are people of our own age, and yes, the ages past can most certainly teach us and grant us new insights into things... but that does not somehow erase the passage of time and all the accumulated changes in thinking and being between a particular time of the past and today. HIP stresses the particular, the detail, the surface, while we should, I think, stress the universal, the meaning, the eternal aspects of classical music... and those can be reached only with a musician's intuition, from his own particular point of view, from the point of view of today. HIP cuts the passage of time between us and the music; we are like in a zoo, ogling a strange animal, instead of being in the same time continuum. I don't want to be an archaeologist or a necrolatrist. I want to hear how the music can connect to me. But, just to clarify, I'm not in favour of bastardising the music with today's fads, either. Today's particulars are particulars as well. What is eternal will shine through, and can be given new life by a true artist. HIP's philosophy is that of fethisism, idol-worship, mistaking the Creation for the Creator.


I disagree. It is entirely in service of the musical experience and the musical score itself. The balances and sounds the creator had in mind were closer to the ones used by HIP performances, and sometimes modern instruments blend when they should stand out, drown certain parts that should remain in relief, and generally destroy the personality of a given work for a more homogeneous sound. A Baroque concerto grosso sounds far more lively when it is a dialogue between individuals, and indeed, I believe, far more imbued with individual personality.

On the other hand, I think that piano performances of Baroque music are an entirely worthy and valid option. The piano may not sound the same as a harpsichord, but it can bring out different aspects of the music. I love that both are available.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Just a thought to add to the mix (which I haven't quite digested myself).

I was talking to another music student yesterday, and he was saying that he had read a book about Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. In this book the author argued that the beautiful bassoon solo at the beginning would not have been possible in Stravinsky's time, basically because there weren't any bassoonists good enough, and it would have sounded horrible and screechy, and in fact that this is what Stravinsky wanted.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

On the contrary, I gravitate a lot towards HIP. I love the sound of the period instruments, I love the playing style, I love the clarity. My Baroque listening is almost exclusively HIP, and it's looking to be that way for Classical as well, and I'm exploring into early Romantic HIP as well. It certainly opened my ears for the Brandenburg Concerti (went from 'oh, that's nice' to 'WOOOOW' - it's what led me to explore the HIP movement more in detail), Vivaldi as a whole (my esteem of him has jumped way up since listening to HIP performances, I feel they really capture his 'spirit'), and other Concerti Grossi in general. It also brought a much deeper appreciation of Mozart's symphonies and fortepiano concerti (I love him a lot more than I used to), and it's made me fall in love with Beethoven's 3rd symphony (which never caught my heart in the past), as well as Schubert's 9th.

That being said, it's all in the music. HIP is not all there is, and I can certainly appreciate good non-HIP music. My favorite Chaconne from Bach is by Henryk Szeryng, and it is not HIP at all. I'm also quite fond of the heavy romanticism in Klemperer's interpretation of Bach's Mass in B Minor.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2013)

I, too, love the HIP movement because I hear things in a work which I don't with a full modern symphony orchestra - which sometimes renders textures rather "muddy" (if I can use that word). Also, I like to mix the Steinway with the fortepiano for my 18th century keyboard listening. Those bell-like overtones on the modern concert grand cannot be what Mozart or Beethoven had in mind, glorious though they undoubtedly are.

I think HIP is essential 'back to the future' - what is old is 'new' again - and I submit that it's the age of recorded sound which has given rise to its popularity. We really are spoiled for choice!


----------

