# How do classical music musicians approach authenticity while performing a work?



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

I read an article and came across a term, Historically informed performance, which mean "performing music with special attention to the technology and performance conventions that were present when a piece of music was composed" (Source).

However, I read other articles that criticize this apporach, with one music critic at the Guardian writing so far to "If performers are forever concerned with ticking all the historically appropriate boxes, then they cease to be musicians and become mere accountants of authenticity"(Source).

So I was wondering how do classical music musicians apporach authenticity when they're performing for an audience? Are they free to modify, what I mean by this is having variations from different performances, a work based on their own interpretation or do they strive for playing accurately based on original sources?

In a perfect world, should classical musicians develop their own different interpretation or conform to the original vision of the composer?

In other words, should classical musicians have authenticity in their expression, meaning that they express their own identity or emotion while performing a work, or have authenticity in their performance, striving to be close to original intent of the composer?

Hopefully, my question will spark some interesting and cordial discussions, and I thank those in advance who offer their own take on this matter.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Conrad2 said:


> However, I read other articles that criticize this apporach, with one music critic at the Guardian writing so far to "If performers are forever concerned with ticking all the historically appropriate boxes, then they cease to be musicians and become mere accountants of authenticity"(Source).


It is an absurd position of The Guardian to suggest that "they cease to be musicians". The HIP approach is successful because it is able to express the music in a way that unites notes with listeners. There are good HIP performers, and bad HIP performers just like any. The article is simply writing something for the sake of it to gather hits (online journalism often gets remunerated by the number of hits to the link, the more hits, the more commercial value it brings). Call it "authentic" or call it whatever you wish, listeners are not dumb, for bad performances whatever the basis, will be rejected HIP or not.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

ArtMusic said:


> It is an absurd position of The Guardian to suggest that "they cease to be musicians". The HIP approach is successful because it is able to express the music in a way that unites notes with listeners. There are good HIP performers, and bad HIP performers just like any. The article is simply writing something for the sake of it to gather hits (online journalism often gets remunerated by the number of hits to the link, the more hits, the more commercial value it brings). Call it "authentic" or call it whatever you wish, listeners are not dumb, for bad performances whatever the basis, will be rejected HIP or not.


I have to admit that the Guardian article was clickbait, but it was the first one I saw that argue on the opposing side. Perhaps a better argument would be from Ralph Kirkpatrick, an Harvard eductaed harpsichordist who wrote this in opposition to HIP, "too often historical authenticity can be used as a means of escape from any potentially disquieting observance of esthetic values, and from the assumption of any genuine artistic responsibility. The abdication of esthetic values and artistic responsibilities can confer a certain illusion of simplicity on what the passage of history has presented to us, bleached as white as bones on the sands of time" (Source). By the way the quote is from a book, _Interpreting Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier_, which is quoted in the article.

By the way I agree with you that listeners are not stupid and can discern what performance they like. I'm just interested in how musicians approach music, and I'm not familiar with HIP, so just gathering perspective.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

I found another article that explore HIP and present a less bias view. Here is a excerpt:
"HIP aims to reestablish a piece of music in its original setting, providing a powerful link with the piece's musical and cultural roots while educating the listener by providing new perspectives. The result is a delightfully fresh take on vintage musical material.

Think of it this way: A director can set Shakespeare's "Hamlet" in medieval Denmark, or in modern L.A., and create a powerful statement either way. A classic piece of art can survive translation and still convey beauty and meaning. But if you've only seen "Hamlet" set in modern L.A., you've missed some of the layers of meaning that Shakespeare assumed would be part of the play.

The HIP approach seeks to place a piece of music in its original context, enabling audiences to experience it more as the composer conceived it. In short, HIP aims to help audiences explore foreign lands in a magical time gone by without the use of a time machine or tesseract."

Excerpt Source

Here's a performance I found that follow HIP:





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HIP doesn't have to be our main focus, it was just that specific term that lead me on a rabbit hole that lead me to ask whether classical musicians should have authenticity in their expression, meaning that they express their own identity or emotion while performing a work, or have authenticity in their performance, striving to be close to original performance by its composer in its original period/era/style.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*HIP snobs*

One of the problems I have with the HIP movement is that they carry on that HIP is the only way one should listen to classical music. It is not a way to perform music but the way.

I am a member of the McLean Symphony. A fifteen years ago we performed the complete _Brandenberg Concertos_ on modern instruments. According to them we were commiting some sort of sacrilege.

I have been to many HIP performances and most of them were duds. Just bacause one is performing on a baroque instruments automatically mean it is going to sound right.

Most of the problems are with balance. Most baropue woodwinds do not project well. I was at an HIP performance that was a concerto for lute and oboe. The conductor really screwed up because one could not hear the oboe. The lute was drowning out the oboe!!!!!!

I have been to too many HIP performances where the conductor did a bad job of dealing with the balance.

I was at one successful HIP performance which was done in a larger concert hall. The conductor arranged the woodwinds in a way they could be heard. I can imagine some HIP expert complaing that this is wrong because the seating arrangement was inappropriate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

As a former performing musician (singer), I considered it my responsibility to understand the style of the music as best I could. This included knowing something about the performance practices of the composer's time, but with any music from before the era of recordings this involves a certain amount of guesswork and questions which will never be resolved. Ultimately we perform music as we feel it. After all, it's an artistic presentation, not a dissertation on the history of music-making.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> One of the problems I have with the HIP movement is that they carry on that HIP is the only way one should listen to classical music. It is not a way to perform music but the way.
> 
> I am a member of the McLean Symphony. A fifteen years ago we performed the complete _Brandenberg Concertos_ on modern instruments. According to them we were commiting some sort of sacrilege.
> 
> ...


Evidently those were very poor HIP performances, a fringe minority.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Evidently those were very poor HIP performances, a fringe minority.


I am just giving my impressions of the various live HIP performances I have attended. These were all performances by professional HIP specialists. The oboe, lute concerto was at an HIP festival.


----------



## Burbage (Nov 27, 2007)

It's worth remembering, perhaps, that institutions such as the Guardian have to fill pages every day, and what with the short notice and word counts, they'll often wave through articles such as the one quoted, in which a broadly specious argument rests on a hypothetical based on, if anything, an anecdote.

It's all good and thought-provoking and, if that's what musicians did, and any of the author's other assumptions held up, it might be worth a moment's consideration. But, happily, it's not, and they don't.

One such assumption, possibly held by for circumstantial reasons, is that performers and scholars are different people. I'm neither a performer nor a musicologist, but I've been reading programme and liner notes for decades, and I have some idea that most performers have at least an inkling of a justification behind their choices, from the editions to use to the speeds to play at. Nor do they find their their instruments in bran tubs.

Another, perhaps more damaging, assumption is that the reader will start out believing that the author is right and everyone else is wrong. This is common enough, both in fiction and the partisan press, but relies here, rather too heavily, on a certain suspension of disbelief. Most of us are happy to do that, almost instinctively, when reading our favourite polemicists, but I doubt that the author in question is, beyond his own home, anyone's favourite polemicist.

And so I have doubts. Although I imagine he had some fun writing this, it doesn't appear to go any further than that, being based on nothing at all, bar a bit of grumpiness over timings and an unevidenced, entirely subjective, resistance to Roger Norrington's well-argued case, in an article he (or a cheeky sub-editor) has witlessly linked to, with nary a hint of rebuttal or refutation.

Given all that, I'm not sure it's worth reading, let along writing about. But, seeing as I have, I can only conclude by deeming it tosh.

Personally, I'm not really sure that 'authenticity' is a thing, outside the tub-thumping circles of the commentariat, and so I'm taken by Norrington's argument (if not, necessarily, his recordings). The only 'authentic' things are the notes on the page, everything else will depend on time and place and audience expectation, the latter strongly shaped by what the audience is used to, and it's the interpreters' literal job to turn those notes to suit. That's where the choices come in - sometimes pure tone alone won't fill the space. Sometimes it's inappropriate for the music. Sometimes, it'll just sound weird to an audience brought to an expect a certain sort of sound from the performers they support.

Sometimes we can flatter ourself that the idea of a performance is to reproduce the sound that the composer 'intended', or had in their head when they wrote it, which is nice enough. But composers live(d) in the real world, too. The musicological archives are full of heavily-marked scores, where composers and performers, often in collaboration, have scribbled and scratched and revised and 'corrected'. Robert Simpson memorably wrote that, though he was confident his quartets would be thoroughly rehearsed, his symphonies would likely be sight-read. Composers know full well that their music will be variably interpreted, so what of their 'intentions' then?

There is a reason why we don't hear performers (or composers) banging on about Callas or Furtwangler; they're both dead and don't sell tickets. Despite that, their reputations live on, mostly thanks to marketers and pliant scribblers, who endlessly grant them the last word on everything, as if the vibrato-filled world of mushy recordings was some sort of biblical paradise.

I don't believe that for an instant. And so I'll grant Norrington almost the last word here: "The reason to [ditch routine vibrato] is not because pure tone is "authentic", but because it is beautiful, expressive and exciting".

That works for me. But other views are available. So why not buy tickets for both? I'm sure that's what Beethoven would have really wanted.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The "Guardian view" (actually your source went elsewhere and if the paper did say such a thing it was probably a freelance contributor?) probably had something. 

Too much HIP sounds the same, including aspects that we could not know about. And, worse, it often extends into periods where the approach it takes is far from authentic (for example using HIP manners for Romantic music where we actually know quite a lot which doesn't support what the likes of Gardiner do ... and even for Mozart their approach may have departed radically from the scholarship as well as good taste). So when performers turn in performances that merely follow a fashion and say nothing new that can feel like they are phoning in their performance. But even when the excuse of authenticity does not hold water some performances by HIP the result can be exciting and fresh and (genuinely) inciteful interpretations. 

When we hear instruments and groups that sound like they would have sounded at the time the music was written, I think it can yield interesting insights (sounds, balances etc) which can lead to or underpin great performances. And - for me a big but - some of what has been done in the name of HIP has resulted in very telling and musical interpretations (Harnoncourt is a big name here and Herreweghe can be, also) that are anything but representations of some new orthodoxy. For many HIP comes down to fast speeds and clipped phrasing but Harnoncourt was never scared of slow speeds and more gentle phrasing and yet could still shock and find new sense with the sounds he found in his "original instruments". 

I suppose, overall, the test is whether pre-HIP performances can still work for us. I think for Baroque music they cannot. We can still enjoy Jochum or Klemperer in Bach but could we ever consider these recordings first choices as we perhaps did? And all but the great pre-HIP recordings of Baroque music sound dull, muddy and/or over-sweetened now, don't they. I suspect the impact of HIP in music from the Classical and Romantic periods have not had this success or influence even though some wonderful performances here have come from HIP performers, performances that exemplify great interpretation rather than scholarship.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

HIP/period instruments has been great for baroque and classical era music.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Historically informed performance is a trend, a fad, that has been growing since the 1950s and has taken over conservatories and some university teaching.

It started in the 1950s when a cadre of musicians tried to play Bach and other Baroque music in what they believed was closer to the spirit of the composer. They changed some instruments, revised what was assumed to be corrupted scores, excised romantic elements from interpretation such as ritards and embellishments, and played the music differently than it had been for 50 years.

Then along came Nikolaus Harnoncourt who recorded Bach's Brandenburg concertos using authentic instruments in the 1960s. Some of his players borrowed instruments from museums for the recordings. Then educators started looking into past performance practices. Then more HIP performances were made that shocked people including Roger Norrington's middle 1980s recordings of the Beethoven symphonies. This let all the horses out of the stable and the race began to reach the most historically correct form of performance.

A lot of this was said to be from research but that has been proven incorrect repeatedly. Many academics and performers play Vivaldi's music today at speeds none of his female students could have performed when he wrote the music for them. Yet HIP specialists insist these speeds are correct. Furthermore virtually nothing is known of Vivaldi's life so there is no basis going back to the composer on his direction.

Others have said the likes of Mahler should be played without string vibrato -- one of the tenets of HIP -- because that was how music was played in the day. Yet interviews by the New York Times with performers that played under Mahler's direction in New York consistently report Mahler used vibrato.

Today historically informed performance is far more a melding of old and new than it was 50 years ago when new or even during the 1990s when it began to take over everything. HIP is little more than a fad, a form of performance, that has taken over for the last new form that arrived thanks to the influence of Arturo Toscanini -- the so-called literal performance style made popular after World War II. 

Someday something else will come along and replace or supersede HIP and its sycophants will claim it is some form of truth, just as people today do that know nothing of the past.

The reason this happens, and the reason people argue about it so much, is classical music is far more an interpretive than creative art. Since there hasn't been much new music written for 50 years or more that anyone knows people are content to argue over how to play the music they know and love that is 100, 200, 300 and 400 years old.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

larold said:


> Historically informed performance is a trend, a fad, that has been growing since the 1950s and has taken over conservatories and some university teaching.
> 
> It started in the 1950s when a cadre of musicians tried to play Bach and other Baroque music in what they believed was closer to the spirit of the composer. They changed some instruments, revised what was assumed to be corrupted scores, excised romantic elements from interpretation such as ritards and embellishments, and played the music differently than it had been for 50 years.
> 
> ...


I don't think it is a "fad", as you have summarized it has been around for over half a century. Today leading music schools do train students who wish to specialize. Musicologists are involved in providing insight and opinion into past practices. Commercial recordings and highly paid performers engage in it. Thanks to HIP complete oeuvres and discoveries of past composers are presented in concerts and recordings. These are facts. The only thing that is a "fad" are those who still think HIP is some kind of label.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*Richard Taruskin* has written a lot about the HIP "movement." You might want to check it out since I think he has some good observations.

I love period instrument recordings, but realize that HIP is not any more authentic than modern performances, the musicians are still playing according to their modern taste, just doing it on the instruments from the period. Life during the time of Bach was very different from ours, and we approach this music after having heard Beethoven, Wagner and Schoenberg, not to mention The Beatles and Stockhausen. So our culture and taste is nothing like it was 300 years ago.

But since I prefer the sound of gut strings and smaller ensembles and quicker tempi, I generally prefer PI/HIP recordings of Baroque and Early music. Some of the Romantic music played on older pianos is nice as well. I also enjoy Brahms symphonies played with period instruments and smaller orchestras: Gardiner, Manze, Dausgaard.

But forget the idea of "authenticity," it is a postmodern delusion. We know some, but not enough how early music was played during that time.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

larold said:


> Others have said the likes of Mahler should be played without string vibrato
> .


Who?

nm vnmj hvc nmj c nj c nh c n c


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Conrad2 said:


> In a perfect world, should classical musicians develop their own different interpretation or confirm to the original vision of the composer?
> 
> In other words, should classical musicians have authenticity in their expression, meaning that they express their own identity or emotion while performing a work, or have authenticity in their performance, striving to be close to original intent of the composer?


Basically both, and I think that's a balance that all performers think about when deciding how to interpret a work. If we want some sort of mechanical performance we'd cut out people and simply feed the score to a computer. At the other extreme, we would still be in the situation that existed in the 19th century, when performers could extemporise on a piece to the extent of changing its entire nature (for example, I read how Anton Rubinstein would play a Beethoven sonata adding his own substantive embellishments).

Apart from interpreting scores as they are, there's also a third way developing now, commissioning new music for old instruments. The Marais Project, an Australian group, not only play Baroque music on original instruments (or copies), but also arrangements of old pieces for these and newer instruments (as in the video below) and new music (whether in old style or not) written for original instruments.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Roger Norrington said Mahler should be played without vibrato.

Last I read about NYP players saying Mahler had them use vibrato was in Fanfare magazine about a year ago.

_However _... *this very forum* has covered this in detail. Here is a comment from a past forum:

"In 1960, the centennial of the birth of Mahler, an elderly retired violinist who had played in the New York Philharmonic under Mahler was interviewed and a recording of this interview has been periodically available. Among the most interesting things the violinist said was that when conducting his symphonies with the NY Phil, he was constantly asking the strings for MORE vibrato at rehearsals! So there, Roger Norrington."

Late Romantic HIP: What Are We Waiting For?


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> *Richard Taruskin* has written a lot about the HIP "movement." You might want to check it out since I think he has some good observations.
> 
> I love period instrument recordings, but realize that HIP is not any more authentic than modern performances, the musicians are still playing according to their modern taste, just doing it on the instruments from the period. Life during the time of Bach was very different from ours, and we approach this music after having heard Beethoven, Wagner and Schoenberg, not to mention The Beatles and Stockhausen. So our culture and taste is nothing like it was 300 years ago.
> 
> ...


Hm, Richard Taruskin has made some interesting comments that I will put down below.

"What we had been accustomed to regard as historically authentic performances, I began to see, represented neither any determinable historical prototype nor any coherent revival of practices coeval with the repertories they addressed. Rather, they embodied a whole wish list of modern(ist) values, validated in the academy and the marketplace alike by an eclectic, opportunistic reading of historical evidence."

"'Historical' performers who aim 'to get to the truth'...by using period instruments and reviving lost playing techniques actually pick and choose from history's wares. And they do so in a manner that says more about the values of the late twentieth century than about those of any earlier era." Source

Thanks for posting that as I wouldn't have look into it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

larold said:


> Roger Norrington said Mahler should be played without vibrato.


Ah yes, I knewhe _did_ play without rubato, but I didn't know he said it _should_ be played without rubato for reasons to do with truth to original practice, rather than as an experiment in performance. I've never heard what he does with Mahler, I'll check it out next time I'm in the mood for that type of music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I've heard some recordings on period instruments that are still clearly modern interpretations/performance practices, just on different instruments, which I think kind of defeats the purpose. I'm mixed on HIP performances. I don't like the sound of the harpsichord, or one voice per part in choral stuff, in general. But other than that I do prefer to listen to Bach and Monteverdi in HIP performances, and very glad to have those alternatives to those in modern instruments.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Conrad2 said:


> Hm, Richard Taruskin has made some interesting comments that I will put down below.
> 
> "What we had been accustomed to regard as historically authentic performances, I began to see, represented neither any determinable historical prototype nor any coherent revival of practices coeval with the repertories they addressed. Rather, they embodied a whole wish list of modern(ist) values, validated in the academy and the marketplace alike by an eclectic, opportunistic reading of historical evidence."
> 
> ...


I don't have a negative reaction to postmodernism in classical music. Here's what I write at the beginning of my post, "I love period instrument recordings, but realize that HIP is not any more authentic than modern performances, the musicians are still playing according to their modern taste, just doing it on the instruments from the period."

I will repeat, *I love PI recordings/performance and prefer it to modern versions*, although I also like Bach played on piano. My gripe is with the idea of "authenticity." IMO, it is a conceit since we have no way of knowing how Bach played his music, nor how any early music was actually performed. Our "authentic" performances most likely would sound strange to Bach and his peers - but we puff ourselves up with whatever scholarship available and attitude.

*I love PI/HIP recordings because I like the sound of the instruments playing this music, not because I think it is more authentic.*


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I don't have a negative reaction to postmodernism in classical music. Here's what I write at the beginning of my post, "I love period instrument recordings, but realize that HIP is not any more authentic than modern performances, the musicians are still playing according to their modern taste, just doing it on the instruments from the period."
> 
> I will repeat, *I love PI recordings/performance and prefer it to modern versions*, although I also like Bach played on piano. My gripe is with the idea of "authenticity." IMO, it is a conceit since we have no way of knowing how Bach played his music, nor how any early music was actually performed. Our "authentic" performances most likely would sound strange to Bach and his peers - but we puff ourselves up with whatever scholarship available and attitude.
> 
> *I love PI/HIP recordings because I like the sound of the instruments playing this music, not because I think it is more authentic.*


I see. Sorry for misreading your post. I need tea to wake up.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Conrad2 said:


> In a perfect world, should classical musicians develop their own different interpretation or confirm to the original vision of the composer?
> 
> In other words, should classical musicians have authenticity in their expression, meaning that they express their own identity or emotion while performing a work, or have authenticity in their performance, striving to be close to original intent of the composer?


This question goes beyong baroque and classical era music. It is a huge question in performing 19th c romantic music as well. For a long time conductors especially viewed scores as something to be tweaked to fit their perception. Making, cuts, re-orchestrating, ignoring tempo markings and other changes were quite normal. Men like Stokowski did this precisely because they wanted to express themselves through the music. He was not alone. Eventually a much more rigorous approach came about: let the composer's voice speak. I prefer that approach, but there's no denying that a lot of modern music making sounds the same just because conductors are no longer putting their personal ideas to the fore. Then along comes a new conductor, Currentzis, who harkens back to older times and inserts a lot of personality into the music, often going against what the composer wrote, and is roundly criticized for it. Yet the results are striking - his take on the Tchaikovsky 6th was a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I like it HIP! Especially in baroque music my ears have become used to the sound of historic instruments. I also like Haydn and Mozart on fortepiano and CPE Bach on clavichord. I also love the modern versions. I'm glad there's such a great variety! I'm a classical guitarist and want to present the music I play the way I think the composer wants it. That is to be careful in following the information in the score. Of course I can't do that completely without coloring it with my own preferences. These days I'm "fighting my way" through Miguel Llobet's transcription of Cordoba by Albeniz. It was made in 1922 and gives a very good idea of how they liked to play romantic music. I have a more than wonderful guitar by Kevin Aram, which is his version of a Torres (Llobet's guitar maker). Once I bought expensive gut strings, but took them off and saved them for a lucky day.
One thing I'm pretty conscious of, is when a musician takes too much liberty in reading a score. I think you should have more respect for the composer than your own ability.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

When properly done I like both. I have recordings of the Vivaldi bassoon concertos on both modern and baroque instruments. I do not feel that one is inherently superior to the other.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm with SanAntone on this one; I often (not always!) prefer HIP/PI because of how the instruments, tuning systems, and performance practices sound playing the music in question, not because of any (vague and probably misinformed) notion of "authenticity". By the same token, many of my favorite performances of CM are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum: utterly unique, blending different styles and genres, often partially improvisatory not necessarily rigidly following the score... but I honestly couldn't care less about the performer's "authentic expression" of him/herself.

"Authenticity" is probably the single most toxic notion in the world of CM and the arts at large.

In general I like performances which bring life and zest to the music. I've never been a big fan of museums; so boring. Too many performances which aim at "authenticity" end up feeling like a museum exhibit.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Conrad2 said:


> So I was wondering how do classical music musicians apporach authenticity when they're performing for an audience? Are they free to modify, what I mean by this is having variations from different performances, a work based on their own interpretation or do they strive for playing accurately based on original sources?
> 
> In a perfect world, should classical musicians develop their own different interpretation or conform to the original vision of the composer?
> 
> In other words, should classical musicians have authenticity in their expression, meaning that they express their own identity or emotion while performing a work, or have authenticity in their performance, striving to be close to original intent of the composer?


Ultimately there is no "should". Performers "should" do whatever they feel like doing, without being inhibited by standards or expectations. But to think that we can have anything more than an inkling of insight into "the original intent" of Bach, Handel, Mozart, et al. is arrogance on our part.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Ultimately there is no "should". Performers "should" do whatever they feel like doing, without being inhibited by standards or expectations. But to think that we can have anything more than an inkling of insight into "the original intent" of Bach, Handel, Mozart, et al. is arrogance on our part.


Perhaps I should rephrase my question as I don't think I have the authority to force musicians to perform in a certain way.

*Rephrased Question*:
Do classical musicians approaches the concept of "authenticity" in performance by their expression, meaning expressing their own identity or emotion while performing a work or strive for authenticity in their performance, trying to be close as possible to the composer's original vision?

For the 2nd apporach, how do musicians who follow this apporach determine the composer's original vision as there are difficulties pointed out by other posters such as no recording?

Hopefully, the rephrased question allow some leeway.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I'm with SanAntone on this one; I often (not always!) prefer HIP/PI because of how the instruments, tuning systems, and performance practices sound playing the music in question, not because of any (vague and probably misinformed) notion of "authenticity"
> ...
> 
> "Authenticity" is probably the single most toxic notion in the world of CM and the arts at large.


Also why is authenticity is a toxic subject in classical music? 
How to discuss it in a nontoxic way?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

^^^
When we study music theory, history, _etc._ we are given guidelines on how we should perform the music. Within those guidelines we still have a range in what we can do.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Conrad2 said:


> Also why is authenticity is a toxic subject in classical music?
> How to discuss it in a nontoxic way?


I have had some interaction with Early Music musicians since for a while I was doing research into Machaut. This issue came up and my impression is that the the authenticity thing was an issue 20+ years ago and today no one stresses it or even takes it seriously.

It can become toxic to the extent it causes arguments among fans of Early Music or in the HIP context.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> ^^^
> When we study music theory, history, _etc._ we are given guidelines on how we should perform the music. Within those guidelines we still have a range in what we can do.


Can you elaborate on those guidelines to an interested layman?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Conrad2 said:


> Perhaps I should rephrase that as I don't think I have the authority to force musicians to perform in a certain way.
> 
> *Rephrased Question*:
> Do classical musicians approaches the concept of "authenticity" in performance by their expression, meaning expressing their own identity or emotion while performing a work or strive for authenticity in their performance, trying to be close as possible to the composer's original vision?
> ...


Well I'll answer your questions (to the best of my knowledge and experience as an amateur musician and friend of more serious musicians) as objectively and positively as possible.

The truth is, it varies from performer to performer of course, but generally both types of "authenticity" are considered.

Regarding the second type of "authenticity", we have documents and scholarship about performance practicing, surviving instruments, primary manuscripts from the composer, etc. There are whole volumes dedicated to ornamentation in Baroque music. But - though some may not like to admit it - as with anything that old, much of our ideas surrounding the "composer's original intent" remain speculative (and it seems many of the generally accepted notions are misguided in that, for instance, they follow the score too rigidly).

Why is it a toxic subject in music? It creates toxic disagreements, expectations & limitations for performers, and elevates the opinion of those whose status reigns supreme in their field. Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Conrad2 said:


> Can you elaborate on those guidelines to an interested layman?


Sorry. I am not that good. If you ever show up to a concert of the McLean Symphony I can demonstrate examples on my horn.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> Sorry. I am not that good. If you ever show up to a concert of the McLean Symphony I can demonstrate examples on my horn.


That's fine. Thanks for the offer. Probably after things settle down. I can search for the answers.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The classic tome on this is Thurston Dart's "The Interpretation of Music" which is now 50-60 years old. (Used to exist as a Norton paperback.)


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_In a perfect world, should classical musicians develop their own different interpretation or confirm to the original vision of the composer?_

In the 19th and through the middle 20th century conductors took every liberty with scores -- rewriting music they didn't like, ignoring dynamic and speed markings, doing pretty much as they liked. This held sway until Toscanini helped everyone believe the score was the guide, not the conductor's temperament.

There were still a few hangovers in the recorded era. Leonard Bernstein was one; he cut Bach's St. Matthew Passion dramatically and, especially later in life, slowed down music beyond its score marking. Leopold Stokowski was probably the last of these progenitors. He regularly made recordings that reorchestrated sections and ignored pacing directions. Even Toscanini himself would make score reductions.

Today it would be anathema for a conservatory-trained conductor to retouch a score, not adhere robotically to a score marking, or in the case of Bruckner play anything but the composer's "first thought" editions.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Conrad2 said:


> Can you elaborate on those guidelines to an interested layman?


Check out this video. She's also easy to look at as well as listen to.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> One of the problems I have with the HIP movement is that they carry on that HIP is the only way one should listen to classical music. It is not a way to perform music but the way.
> 
> I am a member of the McLean Symphony. A fifteen years ago we performed the complete _Brandenberg Concertos_ on modern instruments. According to them we were commiting some sort of sacrilege.
> ...


Absolutely, I agree. Not only is it the conviction that that's the only way this music should be performed, but failing to recognize how speculative it is, like the a=415 pitch that has become standard.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Check out this video. She's also easy to look at as well as listen to.


She's quite pretty, too.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> In a perfect world, should classical musicians develop their own different interpretation or confirm to the original vision of the composer?


the short answer is "both."

But determining the "original vision of the composer" is not a straight-forward simple matter. While a score would seem to present the composer's intention completely, there are thousands of variables. These variables fall under the province of the performer's interpretation. However, there is a limit to the liberties a performer can take before he abuses the composer's intention.

So, my answer is that a talented performer will want to make the work his own, bring the music alive, the composer's vision alive, through his interpretation of the score. It is a partnership, 50:50, which will create the work. But the performer must do this with respect and not put his ego above that of the composer's.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

ArtMusic said:


> She's quite pretty, too.


Yeah you should Venmo her bro. She'd appreciate. Link at the bottom.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

isn't score retouching still relatively common, especially for things like major orchestration issues which sometimes arise when composers never had the chance to hear a certain work live?


----------

