# Late Romantic HIP: What Are We Waiting For?



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's impossible for most of us nowadays to think of what we tend to call "early music" without hearing in our mind's ear the innovative approaches to performance identified by the acronym: HIP - "Historically Informed Performance." Attempts to apply advanced scholarship to the execution of music up to and including the Classical repertoire (eventually extending into the early Romantic era) got under way in earnest in the 1960s with ensembles like the Early Music Consort of London and the Concentus Musicus Wien. Playing on replicas of period instruments and applying the latest understanding of instrumental techniques, vocal styles, rhythmic execution and embellishment, such groups changed our concept of what the music of earlier times may have sounded like in performance.

Just how true to their period our present ideas of "authentic" performance practice may be, we have no way of knowing. We can only consult the work of scholars, the design of early instruments, and our own sensibilities, and we are inevitably left with plenty of room for diverse approaches and disagreement. But we've had by now a couple of generations of performers, recordings and listeners to give us pleasure and food for thought, and most of us who have been paying attention during these years have probably formed strong feelings about how we like our Monteverdi and Purcell, our Bach and Handel, our Haydn and Mozart, and our Beethoven to sound. But what about our Chopin? Our Liszt? Our Verdi? Our Mahler? We probably have our preferences in performances of these composers as well, but what are those preferences based on?

A few well-known classical performers have made attempts to bring the HIP movement into the 19th century. We can hear Chopin and Liszt performed on period pianos, and a few conductors (for example, Roger Norrington and John Eliot Gardiner) have tried to reproduce what they suppose to have been the constitution and sonorities of 19th-century orchestras. But I must admit to being very far from persuaded by many of these admirable efforts that I'm hearing the music played in a style that Romantic era listeners would have recognized. And I have a very good reason for this skepticism: namely, the existence of recordings made by performers who were born as far back as the middle of the 19th century, and who have left us some fascinating glimpses of the way people of their generation imagined and played music we love and think we know well.

I've wanted to address this subject for a long time, but I was moved to start this thread by a fascinating video I just saw on YouTube, and which I want to share now. It's a fairly summary presentation, but I think it's enough to provoke a good deal of thought. Here it is:






I'm very interested in hearing how the ideas of musical performance presented here impress others, and how others might answer the question I've posed in the title of this thread. I'd also like to see more samples of performances by musicians from the early days of recording whose interpretations might further illuminate the topic. I have several in mind that I'll post if there's an interest in hearing them.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What would interest me is if you would spell out the sort of divergence you see between HIP practice and the recorded legacy from performers who were born in the middle of the c19


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I watched the video with interest but am perfectly amazed in the presentation - ie one 'old' performance and only one 'modern' one to compare it with, as if all modern performances were the same. I am completely gobsmacked that anyone of any intelligence can assume this is a scientific way of approaching things. I mean, I have a few recordings of the Liszt example and they are all differently played. So why does he pick on one and seem to assume that's the way everyone plays it? Similarly the Swan Lake. I have various performances and they play it differently. OK we realise styles change but I would have thought more telling examples would have been Rachmaninov playing his piano concertos (or his other pieces) or to compare Gardiner's and Toscanini's Verdi performances of the Requiem and Falstaff. After all, Toscanini played under Verdi so his interpretations must have a certain degree of authenticity. There is also the question of the two Mahler pupils - Walter and Klemperer - who saw Mahler quite differently. 
One thing I did wince at was Patti's 'Voi che sapete' - was this warbling an example of how it should be sung? Bring on Freddie von Stade is what I say and have some decent singing!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Anton Rubinstein didn't want to have his piano recorded in any way, because he realized that his _mistakes _would get immortalized. 
A former student of Liszt remarked that Tausig played more precisely than the master, and if I recall the context of this comment, it has been said as if it Liszt often playing less perfectly than other greats was a known fact.
Due to the fact that there were no recordings, and that musicians didn't have the opportunity to travel as much and compare (or remember) many different performances, much more was just left adrift in a sea of personal decisions, and the public, including critics, on average knew no better. Some traveling critics did, but much more was subjective. It makes much more sense that in those days tyrant conductors like Toscanini or Mahler, as well as primadonna instrumentalists, were succesful. Those with a superior personal interpretation were the only force that could guide musicians or lead music. Often when something went wrong, it passed unnoticed. So in the case of the Swan Lake for example, all I hear is a mismatched performance of the soloist with no concern for the orchestra, and Barbirolli didn't care. If he lived nowadays, he would, because he would be compared to other performances more---not merely to his own past ones, or performances of different works performed by the same orchestra---as was a case in older days. Back then a choice of a work was more often a novelty, and so the entire splendour of effect was split between the composer and the conductor, because few could tell how good of a job did the conductor really do. 
This modern performance of the Swan Theme is far more "perfect"





I would say that modern conductors and musicians in general exceed the past ones, and there is no shame to that. Their predecessors would have been proud of them.

Historical instruments are a different beast. Sometimes music was written for something that sounds differently, and it made more sense with that instrument. Other times I really do not see the point of using a valve-less trumpet or an old piano.

Just yesterday I listened to Aram Khachaturian conducting his masquerade suite with Philharmonia Orchestra at the Kingsway Hall (1954). Compared to the reference recording of Stanley Black with the LSO (1978), the composer himself sometimes does strike various points in music more perfectly, but also has some wacky elements, like kitchy jarring trumpets, that have been tamed by Stanley Black for a more coherent sound---and sometimes Khachaturian even arguably emphasizes various points _less _perfectly than Black.

I've had a related discussion on another board, which reached a conclusion that composers themselves don't necessarily conduct their works the best way, not only because they cannot distance themselves enough from their creation---whereas a conductor is always a listener first, but also because some conductors are so superior in their tempos and hearing, that they can exceed the composers in the aural, physical sense. Also, because composers frequently were and are just guest conductors and do not have a relationship as established with an orchestra, and are less efficient at rehearsing as a result.

I am not yet able to judge which conductors have really been the best and whether there were some factors in the past in favour of the old legends. I like some recordings by Furtwängler, Krauss, and Toscanini, but more frequently I hear no advantage in listening to the old recordings compared to some solid more recent one.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I'm young enough to see this position change. Honestly, cutting in the Schubert/Beethoven ages, the more modern the composition is, the less I feel the need to consider a HIP performance.

I'm really sceptical about period practice for late 19th century. I would have yet to compare for instance early 60s recordings of Brahms or Mahler symphonies to these upcoming HIP performances. Also, Kent Nagano is supposed to start recording a HIP Wagner Ring by the beginning of next decade. Here, I think playing and conducting are more into question than singing, as they would probably face against the ongoing London Philharmonic Wagner Ring conducted by Vladimir Jurowski with a known modern instrument full orchestra as has been the fashion over a century (but recorded with fuller quality than in the 20th century). If we were to compare both orchestral playings, which would we prefer? And how much will conducting incluence in our sensations? (I don't particularly have the hots for Nagano or Jurowski so far into my journey).

If there was any HIP approach for instance to Wagner, that could have to do with the timings performed during his lifetime, or which he reportedly reccommended. Harmut Haenchen has argumented and championed a _Parsifal_ conducting that could be well compared to the once-despised timings of Pierre Boulez below 3h50m. I'm not automatically against fast Wagner conducting since sometimes Pierre Boulez made it seem natural, but unfortunately, neither Haenchen's broadcasts from Bayreuth or Thielemann's Parsifal from Salzburg leading the SKD (what a messy prelude) have ever convinced me compared to controversial Karajan performances or of course the leading 20th century interpreter Hans Knappertsbusch.

I once listened and wasn't really pleased by John Eliot Gardiner conducting Brahms symphonies, and still consider his rendition of _Les Troyens_ as quite good. But instead of putting all the effort on orchestras, are we ever going to focus on good HIP conductors inventive enough to completely challenge 20th century's recorded legacy?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Found this interesting. Obviously the composer's ideas were somewhat different than today!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> What would interest me is if you would spell out the sort of divergence you see between HIP practice and the recorded legacy from performers who were born in the middle of the c19


I don't know what you mean by "divergence between HIP practice and the recorded legacy from performers who were born in the middle of the c19."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

O sorry, I just wanted to know which performances you were thinking of when you wrote this. I mean the old "glimpses " and the recent "efforts"

"But I must admit to being very far from persuaded by many of these admirable efforts that I'm hearing the music played in a style that Romantic era listeners would have recognized. And I have a very good reason for this skepticism: namely, the existence of recordings made by performers who were born as far back as the middle of the 19th century, and who have left us some fascinating glimpses of the way people of their generation imagined and played music we love and think we know well."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

By the way a similar thing came up for me a few months ago. Some pianist claimed to have found the authentic way to play Brahms based on old records. But when I listened to the old records prima facie they weren't at all like what she was doing. Of course I was only listening superficially, there may have been important performance details in common which I missed. 

I'm not at home now, I'll dig out the details later.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I, for one, have little interest in HIP being applied to late romanticism. Firstly, that era wasn't that long ago and there were plenty of people who knew the styles then and lived long enough to bring their wisdom well into the 20th c. Bruno Walter, Adrian Boult, Arthur Rodzinksi, Serge Koussevitsky and many more made numerous recordings that are not significantly different from what's being done today. Second, the improvement of instrument technology were all to the good, with the possible exception of higher tension strings. The improvements in intonation, projection and playability aren't something I would want to go without. 

Then there's this: does anyone really want to go back to the sloppy string playing with portamento so common? Ugh! There are some old recordings where it's prevalent and it drives me crazy. Mengelberg, for example. When it's called for, then it should be used. One example: in the Mahler 2nd, Urlicht, the composer wrote some portanmentos in the strings parts that have been and still are widely ignored or rejected by conductors. Then along comes Lorin Maazel (himself a fine violinist) who restores them, brings them to the fore and makes it into a deeply moving, heartfelt moment. But when Mahler doesn't write it, he doesn't use it - good thing! Or compare Svetlanov's two recordings of the Balakirev 1st. In the slow movement on the Melodiya recording he used portamento subtly to great, touching effect. But in his Hyperion remake he used none - and the performance seems cold, calculated and unmoving.

Not would I want HIP attitudes brought back where tampering with scores was the norm. Cuts, re-orchestrations, and other damage (ala Stokowski) should never be the norm. Did you know that for many years it was common to replace the slow movement of a lesser symphony with the slow movement from Beethoven's 7th? If that was HIP, count me out.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Found this interesting. Obviously the composer's ideas were somewhat different than today!


Yes, this is very interesting. I think it illustrates further some of the ideas suggested by the video in the OP which you've called (in post #3) "unscientific":



> I am completely gobsmacked that anyone of any intelligence can assume this is a scientific way of approaching things. I mean, I have a few recordings of the Liszt example and they are all differently played. So why does he pick on one and seem to assume that's the way everyone plays it? Similarly the Swan Lake. I have various performances and they play it differently. OK we realise styles change but I would have thought more telling examples would have been Rachmaninov playing his piano concertos (or his other pieces) or to compare Gardiner's and Toscanini's Verdi performances of the Requiem and Falstaff. After all, Toscanini played under Verdi so his interpretations must have a certain degree of authenticity. There is also the question of the two Mahler pupils - Walter and Klemperer - who saw Mahler quite differently.


Of course you are correct in pointing out that performances have always differed from each other. The question is whether we can identify general principles or tendencies in different performance traditions. The OP video is suggesting that we can. Were performers in 1900 doing things that made them similar to each other but different from anything we hear today? It's a bit early in the conversation to dismiss that question, wouldn't you say?



> One thing I did wince at was Patti's 'Voi che sapete' - was this warbling an example of how it should be sung? Bring on Freddie von Stade is what I say and have some decent singing!


This is actually a great example. I'd guess that most of us have what we think is a pretty good general idea of how Mozart should be sung. Let's listen to "Voi che sapete" as interpreted by two celebrated modern singers - von Stade (your suggestion) and Joyce DiDonato - and then by Adelina Patti, born in 1843 (and thus 62 at the time of the recording). It's important to keep in mind both Patti's age and the fact that the timbre of a soprano voice on an acoustic recording of 1905 could not be accurately captured, and that we're listening for style and interpretation only.

Von Stade: 




DiDonato: 




Patti: 




I have to confess that I was stunned when I first heard Patti's way with this music, and that my first thought was, "No one would DARE sing this way today!" I would now amend that to say that no one today, looking at the score, could even IMAGINE it sung this way. Constant variations in tempo, detailed dynamic shading, departures from written note values, abundant portamenti (sliding) between notes - it isn't how we've been told music of the Classical period should sound. But Adelina Patti was one of the most celebrated and beloved singers of the 19th century, and Verdi considered her one of the greatest artists he had ever heard. Her approach to Mozart may not have typified Mozart's own era - maybe we're more "correct" now, or maybe not - but I think it tells us something important about the stylistic assumptions of her own time, which we call the late Romantic era.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I have to confess that I was stunned when I first heard Patti's way with this music, and that my first thought was, "No one would DARE sing this way today!" I would now amend that to say that no one today, looking at the score, could even IMAGINE it sung this way. Constant variations in tempo, detailed dynamic shading, departures from written note values, abundant portamenti (sliding) between notes - it isn't how we've been told music of the Classical period should sound. But Adelina Patti was one of the most celebrated and beloved singers of the 19th century, and Verdi considered her one of the greatest artists he had ever heard. Her approach to Mozart may not have typified Mozart's own era - maybe we're more "correct" now, or maybe not - but I think it tells us something important about the stylistic assumptions of her own time, which we call the late Romantic era.


If Patti was held in such high regard in her day, I certainly think it shows us we sing Mozart better now if her recording is anything to go by!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, this is very interesting. I think it illustrates further some of the ideas suggested by the video in the OP which you've called (in post #3) "unscientific":
> 
> Of course you are correct in pointing out that performances have always differed from each other. The question is whether we can identify general principles or tendencies in different performance traditions. The OP video is suggesting that we can. Were performers in 1900 doing things that made them similar to each other but different from anything we hear today? It's a bit early in the conversation to dismiss that question, wouldn't you say?


My point was that it is 'unscientific' merely to have one example of each, especially of modern recordings where one can choose the recoding to fit the point one is making. I think one interesting point that was made by a reviewer of Brahms piano concerto 1 was that Backhaus (who knew Brahms) played the music faster than some more modern pianists, and she suspected that was the way the (youthful) Brahms did himself. That does not invalidate a broader approach but it does tell us about Brahms possible intentions. I found the Brahms video interesting because it did show the composer vastly more cavalier with his own music than performers would dare to be today. I suspect Mozart and Beethoven were too. But then they had the privilege of being the composers! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> O sorry, I just wanted to know which performances you were thinking of when you wrote this. I mean the old "glimpses " and the recent "efforts"
> 
> "But I must admit to being very far from persuaded by many of these admirable efforts that I'm hearing the music played in a style that Romantic era listeners would have recognized. And I have a very good reason for this skepticism: namely, the existence of recordings made by performers who were born as far back as the middle of the 19th century, and who have left us some fascinating glimpses of the way people of their generation imagined and played music we love and think we know well."


Here is an attempt at Romantic HIP by Roger Norrington which is clearly the work of a late 20th-century musician who's done a bit of reading and thinks that he's now equipped to experiment on Wagner and on us.






Norrington is working from the premise that orchestral string players in Wagner's day didn't use vibrato - a controversial notion - and on the generalized impression that tempi then tended to be faster than they later became, which may be true as a broad generalization but which is subject to much qualification. The results, to my ears, are a perfect illustration of how HIP can substitute dogmatic assumptions for vital music-making and bear no resemblance to what I'd consider Romantic style, much less to Wagner's marking in the score: _langsam und schmachtend_ (slow and yearning). We might contrast this with a deeply felt interpretation from 1928 by Karl Elmendorff:






What I notice above all with Elmendorff is the complete absence of rigidity in the tempo, which changes subtly and organically throughout, sometimes almost bar by bar, as the expression dictates. This is exactly the kind of expressive flexibility Wagner describes in his essay "On Conducting," and which seems also to have been a characteristic of Mahler's conducting. If it's indeed true that tempi tended to be quicker on early recordings, I think it's crucial to realize that this refers to the BASIC tempo, which performers would be expected to modify for expressive reasons. We can hear this in the recordings Rachmaninoff made of his piano concertos; the 3rd concerto begins at a tempo as fast as we can hear anywhere on recordings, but the composer as performer is so alert, inventive and sensitive in the application of rubato that even if we resist the tempo initially we become totally convinced as we listen.

The assumption that tempo is something to be played with freely for expressive purposes is only one aspect of Romantic music-making that distinguishes it from later 20th-century practice, but it's clearly an important one. It's especially remarkable to hear it employed in orchestral music, where it's less easily accomplished than in solo playing and singing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think one interesting point that was made by a reviewer of Brahms piano concerto 1 was that Backhaus (who knew Brahms) played the music faster than some more modern pianists, and she suspected that was the way the (youthful) Brahms did himself. That does not invalidate a broader approach but it does tell us about Brahms possible intentions. I found the Brahms video interesting because it did show the composer vastly more cavalier with his own music than performers would dare to be today. I suspect Mozart and Beethoven were too. But then they had the privilege of being the composers! :lol:


Consider the possibility that composers in earlier eras expected ALL performers to be more "cavalier" than we are now about interpreting a score. Everyone accepts this as true of performers in the Baroque. I'm suggesting that the expectation didn't change in Mozart's, Beethoven's, or even Brahms's time, and that the idea of complete fidelity to what's written on the page is largely a 20th-century notion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Here is an attempt at Romantic HIP by Roger Norrington which is clearly the work of a late 20th-century musician who's done a bit of reading and thinks that he's now equipped to experiment on Wagner and on us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes a similar thing happened in early music. Some of the earlier informed performances of c17 keyboard music -- people like Scott Ross and Zuzana Ruzickova and Ralph Kirkpatrick and Anthony Newman tended to play with very little rhythmic flexibility, even though there is, as far as I know, no reason to think that in the c17 it was expected to be played like this, quite the contrary, comments by composers on how how read their scores often encourage flexibility.

My guess is that Ross, Kirkpatrick etc were reacting against the previous performance style, people like Tipo and Landowska etc. Certainly today's performers don't play like that.

I don't know anything about Wagner performance, maybe the same thing happened there, a reaction against Furtwangler.

I can say that I've explored HIP Chopin a little, and Schumann and Brahms -- keyboard mainly, but not only keyboard. The performers don't use rigid rhythms at all. Maybe in those works the reaction came earlier, with Rubinstein.

I don't know if Norrington still plays like that.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Consider the possibility that composers in earlier eras expected ALL performers to be more "cavalier" than we are now about interpreting a score. Everyone accepts this as true of performers in the Baroque. I'm suggesting that the expectation didn't change in Mozart's, Beethoven's, or even Brahms's time, and that *the idea of complete fidelity to what's written on the page is largely a 20th-century notion*.


Is this a topic up for debate? I always thought it was well understood that the 20th century represented a rejection of Romantic performance practice, particularly conductors like Solti and Karajan following in Toscanini's footsteps.

With pianists, it's a little more of a mixed bag--I think it's true that the critical consensus tended to favor literalist pianists like Pollini but the Russians under the influence of the Godowsky-trained Heinrich Neuhaus never fully abandoned Romantic piano performance practice. And even during the primacy of the literalists, there was a lot of overlap with elder statesmen Romantics like Horowitz and Arrau.

Many of the most interesting young pianists today seem to be aiming for a combination of the transparency and absolute technical polish of Pollini or Michelangeli with the more echt-Romantic style of performance including loads of rubati and right hand de-sync to highlight the melodic lines.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Consider the possibility that composers in earlier eras expected ALL performers to be more "cavalier" than we are now about interpreting a score. Everyone accepts this as true of performers in the Baroque. I'm suggesting that the expectation didn't change in Mozart's, Beethoven's, or even Brahms's time, and *that the idea of complete fidelity to what's written on the page is largely a 20th-century notion*.


You are probably right. The idea of fidelity to the score as we know it today probably had its genesis with Toscanini et al. Of course, as Toscanini said, all we have today is the score so faithfulness to it is faithfulness to at least the composer's original intentions. But then as Stravinsky once said to Colin Davis, "The score is just the beginning." So probably the answer lies between the two.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Yes a similar thing happened in early music. Some of the earlier informed performances of c17 keyboard music -- people like Scott Ross and Zuzana Ruzickova and Ralph Kirkpatrick and Anthony Newman tended to play with very little rhythmic flexibility, even though there is, as far as I know, no reason to think that in the c17 it was expected to be played like this, quite the contrary, comments by composers on how how read their scores often encourage flexibility.
> 
> My guess is that Ros, Kirkpatrick etc were reacting against the previous performance style, people like Tipo and Landowska etc. Certainly today's performers don't play like that.
> 
> ...


Yes, I've noticed that performances of Baroque music are often more rhythmically flexible now than they were years ago. That seems a good thing; it's just more expressive and, as you say, there's absolutely no reason to think that performers back then felt obligated to maintain a sewing-machine regularity. I think there's been some awareness of the need for more rhythmic flexibility in later music as well, but conductors are understandably more reluctant to face the issue than solo performers. I suspect they live in terror of the possibility that attempts at rubato will compromise the perfection of ensemble that most of us are now accustomed to and expect. The fact is, it will to some extent do just that, and acceptance of rough edges in the name of expressiveness may be too much to ask.

I've also noticed, VERY occasionally, conductors introducing discreet touches of portamento into string playing in Romantic repertoire; I remember hearing Levine do this in something (it might even have been _Tristan_), but it struck me as a bit of cosmetology rather than a real immersion in Romantic style.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I wonder what the romantics make of this recording.
















> Our present-day ears have become accustomed to the
> fact that in Baroque music everything which is written down vertically does not necessarily sound in a
> uniform, superimposed manner. However, at the latest starting from the Classical era, and especially in
> Romantic music, a return to order can be welcomed,
> ...


I'd be very interested to know if this claim they make is true



> On the earliest
> recordings this means that the performers do not
> play together in an exact manner. That was certainly
> part of the idea: a free and easy association with
> ...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

And there's the Primrose Quartet's Brahms

The blurb says



> Recorded in the Ehrbar Saal, Vienna on authentic pianos of the period.
> 
> As a culmination of many years of research and in preparation for our recording of the Brahms piano quartets using period pianos and gut strings, we convened a four day symposium in Birmingham to workshop, debate and discuss the latest thinking in the field with Dr. Anna Scott, Claire Holden, Dr. Kate Bennett Wadsworth, Professor Ronald Woodley, Jung Yoon Cho and Job Ter Haar.
> 
> ...


but I wasn't convinced by this idea. See my next post.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

> Pianist Dr. Anna Scott made a compelling case for allowing the evidence of how members of the Schumann-Brahms circle played in early recordings to "romanticise" our very conception of Brahms. Stretching and compressing pulse within an overall tempo and free expressive use of asynchronicity, arpeggiation, rhythmic alteration, agogically inflected dynamic shapes and rubato give her own performances a rich expressivity.


I'm having a problem making sense of this.

It looks like Anna Scott's thesis is based on the performance style of people who'd studied with Clara Schumann.

https://challengingperformance.com/interviews-recordings/anna-scott/

Schumann's pupils include Fanny Davies, Ilona Eibenschutz, Adelina de Lara, Natalie Janotha, and Carl Friedberg.

Here's Fanny Davies playing Schumann, it does not seem specially romantic to me, on the contrary. I can't find any recording of her playing Brahms






Neither does this recording of Ilona Eibenschutz playing a Brahms ballade






Nor this recording of a Brahms intermezzo by Carl Friedberg


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> And there's The Primrose Quartet's Brahms
> 
> The blurb says
> 
> but I wasn't convinced by this idea. See my next post.


Sorry that's the wrong image, and I can't delete it, this is what it should have been.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> Is this a topic up for debate? I always thought it was well understood that the 20th century represented a rejection of Romantic performance practice, particularly conductors like Solti and Karajan following in Toscanini's footsteps.


I agree that that's well understood.



> With pianists, it's a little more of a mixed bag--I think it's true that the critical consensus tended to favor literalist pianists like Pollini but the Russians under the influence of the Godowsky-trained Heinrich Neuhaus never fully abandoned Romantic piano performance practice. And even during the primacy of the literalists, there was a lot of overlap with elder statesmen Romantics like Horowitz and Arrau.
> 
> Many of the most interesting young pianists today seem to be aiming for a combination of the transparency and absolute technical polish of Pollini or Michelangeli with the more echt-Romantic style of performance including loads of rubati and right hand de-sync to highlight the melodic lines.


My feeling is that it's in Romantic solo piano music, from Chopin to Scriabin, that 19th-century performance concepts have survived most intact, although, as you point out, to varying degrees. Orchestral performance is another matter: the creative freedom we hear in such vivid and distinctive musical personalities as Mengelberg, Stokowski and Furtwangler is unlike anything heard today, and I doubt whether modern audiences would even accept it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I wonder what the romantics make of this recording.
> 
> View attachment 124889
> 
> ...


Although I've never been fond of the sound of the violin played with little or no vibrato, and I do wonder whether Leila Schayegh might profitably have applied a little more here and there, I'm very impressed with this performance, and on the basis of what we can hear on the internet (YouTube 



 ) I'm tempted to buy the recording. Schayegh and Schultsz really are attempting to apply 19th-century ideas about articulation and sonority - rolled chords, portamento, impulsive phrasing, flexible tempi - and it all has a nice improvisatory feeling and makes for a stimulating listen. Zukerman and Barenboim sound just a bit staid and literal by comparison.

I'm inclined to agree with that last statement you quote: "On the earliest recordings this means that the performers do not play together in an exact manner. That was certainly part of the idea: a free and easy association with tempo and notation was self-evident - anyone who was incapable of doing this just wasn't a proper musician!"

I think a feeling of spontaneity was highly valued - of something being created in the moment - as it is in jazz. That statement could describe good jazz performance exactly.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The HIP movement has already progressed (is this the right term ?) to late 19th and even 20th century music . There are orchestras such as "Les Siecles " ( the centuries ) , Anima Aeterna of Belgium, and the New Queen's Hall orchestra ( which is no longer active), for example .
Jos Van Immerseel with the Animal Eterna orchestra , has recorded "authentic" versions of Carmina Burana ! and even Gershwin works such as the rhapsody in Blue . 
But just how "authentic " these performance are is debatable . The French conductor Francois Xavier Roth , now music director of the city of Cologne, has done an HIP version of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring with Les Siecles , using among other thing,s the old fashioned French model horns, which are narrow bore piston valved horns unlike the usual rotary valved instrument . This performance can be seen on youtube anduis also on CD . Roth has also done HIP Debussy, Ravel, Dukas and even an HIP Also Sprach Zarathustra id Richard Strauss . 
Roger Zorrington has recorded an HIP Bruckner 3rd in the much longer original version for EMI with the London Classical player,s which is no longer active . Philippe Herreweghe and Orchestre De Champs Elysees has recorded HIP version of the bruckner, 4th and 7th . 
Herreweghe has even done an HIP Mahler 4th with the same orchestra . Ive heard the Herreweghe Bruckner 4 and 7 plus the Mahler 4 . There is almost no difference in sound I can detect between mainstream orchestras except for a somewhat thinner sound from the strings . 
Just how far the HIP movement will go is anyone's guess . But the classic DG recording of Carmina Burana with Eugen Jochum and the chorus and orchestra of the Berlin Deutsche oper was supervised by Orff and has his stamp of approval . Is the Immerseel recording "more authentic "? It uses what are suppose dot the instruments used in the 1930s when the work was premiered .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ People have been using period-style instruments for quite a while. I have, and enjoy, John Eliot Gardiner's recording of the _Symphonie Fantastique,_ which not only uses period instruments but was recorded in the very hall where the work was premiered. To me, though, the instruments are generally the least interesting and the least important part of performance practice. Whether your strings are metal or gut is much less critical than the way you play the music. Of course this isn't even a consideration with singing; as far as we can tell, the human voice hasn't changed.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's some Brahms symphonies which I enjoyed, played in a way which takes into account Brahms's intentions






https://www.claves.ch/products/brahms-the-symphonies-musikkollegium-winterthur-thomas-zehetmair


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Those are really good! I have no idea whether or not they are authentic but they certainly do give us an approach to Brahms that is strikingly new (to me, anyway) and that does not in any way sell Brahms short. They do this to an almost miraculous extent. I wonder how they will seem when I know them well so that the sense of novelty has subsided (so far I've only played to whole set once and the 3rd symphony twice).

As you all know, I am no scholar and do not aspire to be, but I suppose what I like about the application of HIP thinking (in all its various guises) is its generation and exploration of new interpretive approaches. I, also, was never convinced by the idea that Romantic composers eschewed vibrato but I have never been wholly convinced by the claims made by HIP practitioners for their Baroque interpretations, either. At the same time, though, I do feel that the best Baroque recordings we have had over the last 50 years have all been ostensibly HIP ... and overall these may be getting better and better. The _desire _to be true to the original style seems still to be a potent driving force in the development of modern approaches to realising Baroque music.

The HIP approach to Romantic music has been far less successful to my ear but has still resulted in some strikingly good recordings - Herreweghe's Franck symphony is a case in point - as well as many (often from Gardiner!) that leave me cold or tell me nothing that is compellingly new. I like Gardiner's Schumann, for example, but don't feel it tells me much that I can't get from Sawallisch. Interpretive styles are fashions (they change) and HIP (in all its various guises) is one source of interesting ideas for how to play the Romantics. It can only be for the good that more recent developments are in themselves critical of earlier HIP attempts. At the end of the day, though, for me the whole thing comes down to my subjective feel for whether I am hearing something a little new but just as true (as musically convincing) in its way as earlier great recordings. And in this I am finding that I prefer some some interpreters to others - just as I always did - and tend not to divide my Romantic interpreters into HIP and non-HIP camps.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Studying authentic practice just gives performers some new ideas to try out. They still have to make it into music! Brahms seems to have done very well from HIP, and so has Chopin IMO. Liszt and Schumann I've explored much less. Or rather the Schumann on original instruments seemed less exciting and fresh and revealing of new things. There is a fortepiano recording of the Transcendental Etudes which I thought was thought provoking, I'll try to remember the details later.

I've never explored romantic concertos. I think that there's a HIP recording of the Chopin concertos (there's more than one isn't there?) which has a good reputation, I've never heard it.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Glenn Gould once joked that HIP didn't really deserve its name before the hipsters played Rachmaninov's concertos on a turn of the century Steinway! :lol::tiphat:


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Expecting a new view of Late Romantic music from Baroque HIPsters is making the same mistake once again: first critics made the mistake of leaving the Baroque repertoire to musicians schooled in Late Romanticism - and now we're "topsy-turvying" that mistake by leaving the Late Romantic repertoire to Baroque experts.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ There _may _be _some _truth in that. Who do you have in mind?


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ There _may _be _some _truth in that. Who do you have in mind?


Romanticizing Baroque:
For example: Karajan's recording of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos and Eugen Jochum's recording of Bach B minor mass.

"Baroquecizing" of Romantic reperoire:
For example: Gardiner's and Harnoncourt's recordings of the Schumann symphonies.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ OK. I agree about Karajan and Jochum (although I still quite like the latter). I'm not so sure about the Gardiner as I don't hear much in his approach that we had not had before (even if it sounds a little different). As for Harnoncourt, I only quite like his Schumann symphonies but it is a long time since I stopped thinking of him as a Baroque specialist. He has shown us that he has many faces!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ras said:


> Romanticizing Baroque:
> For example: Karajan's recording of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos and Eugen Jochum's recording of Bach B minor mass.
> 
> "Baroquecizing" of Romantic reperoire:
> For example: Gardiner's and Harnoncourt's recordings of the Schumann symphonies.


It's interesting that Karajan's earlier 1950s recording of Bach's mass was considered very progressive and almost 'HIP' in its day in regard to tempi and general leanness of approach. He himself was disappointed with his later DG recording. The EMI is worth hearing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ras said:


> Expecting a new view of Late Romantic music from Baroque HIPsters is making the same mistake once again: first critics made the mistake of leaving the Baroque repertoire to musicians schooled in Late Romanticism - and now we're "topsy-turvying" that mistake by leaving the Late Romantic repertoire to Baroque experts.


Who better to offer a "new view" and challenge tired, and possibly false, traditions? The accumulating legacy of recordings has given us a great range of interpretive choices, and the range is only getting wider. It isn't surprising that musicians who began exploring HIP in Baroque music decades ago should find their area of interest expanding forward in time into the 19th century, and although their efforts have been variable - just like their efforts in Baroque music - the urge to explore is all to the good. Gardiner and Harnoncourt are both versatile musicians who I think have done some nice work in Romantic repertoire. I've enjoyed them both in Schumann and Mendelssohn, and Gardiner's period-instrument Berlioz, complete with ophecleide and serpent, is great fun. I haven't heard Harnoncourt's Bruckner, but it seems to have its partisans. I'm not fond of the work of Roger Norrington in the late Romantic repertoire he's attempted; his Wagner and Tchaikovsky are anemic and even perverse, seemingly more concerned to avoid Romantic expression than to understand what it is.

We have to remember that Romanticism was not a static phenomenon and that performance styles certainly changed in the course of the 19th century and into the 20th. It's unlikely that Mahler's ideas on conducting would have been wholly endorsed by Mendelssohn. The important thing for any musician trying to adopt historic practices is to get beyond scholarly "correctness," find a strong sense of personal identification with the music, and play with the conviction that the new approaches she is using are illuminating the music's character as she feels it. There will always be disagreement there, leading to a diversity of results, and that's surely a good thing. After all, musicians contemporary with any music disagree about how it should be played.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Here's an amazing example of de-synchronizing melody and accompaniment. We hear pianists do this sort of thing in Romantic music, but hearing an orchestra do it, and in Beethoven no less, blew me away.

Beethoven: Symphony #6, "Pastoral" - 2nd movement (begins at 8:30)


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2019)

Ras said:


> "Baroquecizing" of Romantic reperoire:
> For example: Gardiner's and Harnoncourt's recordings of the Schumann symphonies.


I haven't heard Gardiner, but I can't imagine what you could mean saying Harnoncourt "baroquecizes" Schumann. He works miracles making the music explode with infectious rhythmic vitality and orchestral color.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Here's an amazing example of de-synchronizing melody and accompaniment. We hear pianists do this sort of thing in Romantic music, but hearing an orchestra do it, and in Beethoven no less, blew me away.
> 
> Beethoven: Symphony #6, "Pastoral" - 2nd movement (begins at 8:30)


Yes. This sort of music is very much off my radar now but when I used to be interested in it I was a great fan of Mengelberg, especially in that symphony.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There are plenty of recordings where orchestras used instruments of the time and perceived practices on late romantic music. Here is one example:

https://www.amazon.com/Symphony-Nut...symphony+4+anima+eterna&qid=1570541433&sr=8-1

The main issue with this is there is little difference in the sound of the orchestra and there isn't the body of "evidence" for late romantic music that seems to exist for earlier music, such as that of Bach's time.

I think that evidence is faulty anyway. In the case of Vivaldi, a composer whose music to me has been ruined by historically informed practitioners, almost nothing is known about his life and music. He wrote most of it at and for a school for wayward girls. In the main he did not write for professional musicians. Yet HIP practitioners think his music should be played at 120 or presto or however you want to define it -- even though much of it was written for these girls with no musical training.

The fact is the historically informed movement is little more than a fashion like wide lapels or long skirts. Music changes fashion over time like everything else. HIP was preceded in the 1960s by literalism and by the first Baroque authenticity movement in the 1950s. Before that there was humanism and a time when conductors could do anything they wanted with scores, a fashion that was in place for a century. Leopold Stokowski was the last living relic of the era.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Thanks goes out to Mandryka for posting the Brahms symphonies on Claves (that site is very nice), and the "straight" violin rendition of the Brahms sonata. I've ordered both of these.

Speaking of gut strings, The Smithsonian Players are a good way to hear what it sounds like.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

larold said:


> ...In the case of Vivaldi, a composer whose music to me has been ruined by historically informed practitioners, almost nothing is known about his life and music. He wrote most of it at and for a school for wayward girls. In the main he did not write for professional musicians. Yet HIP practitioners think his music should be played at 120 or presto or however you want to define it -- even though much of it was written for these girls with no musical training.


I only know what I like. For me, Vivaldi was wallpaper until I heard Giuliano Carmignola. He brought the music to life for me.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

larold said:


> I think that evidence is
> 
> The fact is .


Rejecting HIP in music is like rejecting truth in conversation.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Fabulin said:


> A former student of Liszt remarked that Tausig played more precisely than the master, and if I recall the context of this comment, it has been said as if it Liszt often playing less perfectly than other greats was a known fact.


I would take this quote with a huge grain of salt; the vast majority of Liszt's pupils were taken on when he was quite elderly and often very ill. I doubt very much it reflects his pianism of 40 years earlier.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I've sampled some of Gardiner's Brahms recordings. As far as I can tell his approach to Brahms is quite similar to his approach to Baroque music - brisk, relatively steady tempi, emphasis on clarity of lines, minimal vibrato, etc. So it's not historically informed at all - it's just Gardiner's personal style, which is far more anachronistic in this music than the modern style. My (admittedly even more limited) sampling of other Baroque-specialist conductors doing HIP recordings of Romantic repertoire are similar. Am I missing something?

I agree that a true HIP approach to the late Romantic repertoire, drawing on the oldest recordings and piano rolls and contemporary writings, would be fascinating, but is much of it happening right now?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I agree that a true HIP approach to the late Romantic repertoire, drawing on the oldest recordings and piano rolls and contemporary writings, would be fascinating, but is much of it happening right now?


Well I've given you a bunch of examples of Brahms recordings if you look up the thread, what more do you want?

I was trying to avoid keyboard, just to make it more interesting, but nevertheless, here are some Chopin examples.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

A ground breaking recording of the 3rd sonata and other things here by Edoardo Torbianelli, who is the sort of scholar/performer which is common in early music, but rarer in 19th century music. He has taken inspiration not only from the physical sound quality of Chopin's piano, but also by contemporary bel canto singing practice. The booklet essay by Jeanne Roudet is stimulating.



> inally, nothing is as vivid in Chopin's pianistic
> art as the similarity of his technique and performative style to the bel canto school of singing, inherited
> from the art of the eighteenth-century castrati and
> perpetuated in the 1800s by the great Italian singers
> ...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Hubert Rutkowski's Chopin is the closest I've heard to the Chopin of Mauriz Rosenthal. The instrument is characterful because the sounds it makes are so rich in partials. He says he has explored Chopin's comments about fingering, especially the effect of fingering on colour. Rutkowski's rubato is organic and his touch and phrasing is dramatic and song like. Well recorded.



> After this performance Chopin would favour Pleyel pianos. His preference
> was certainly justified due to the warm, melodious and velvet singsong
> tone, as well as the possibility for highly subtle sound differentiation. Chopin
> himself would praise this "light way of playing" and "songful singsong
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I've sampled some of Gardiner's Brahms recordings. As far as I can tell his approach to Brahms is quite similar to his approach to Baroque music - brisk, relatively steady tempi, emphasis on clarity of lines, minimal vibrato, etc. So it's not historically informed at all - it's just Gardiner's personal style, which is far more anachronistic in this music than the modern style. My (admittedly even more limited) sampling of other Baroque-specialist conductors doing HIP recordings of Romantic repertoire are similar. Am I missing something?
> 
> I agree that a true HIP approach to the late Romantic repertoire, drawing on the oldest recordings and piano rolls and contemporary writings, would be fascinating, but is much of it happening right now?


Gardiner belongs to the generation for whom the pursuit of an authentic sound image, by way of period instruments, was the major consideration. I agree that his performances of Romantic repertoire, even when they're good, show no special insight into performing styles, and don't really bring us closer to the composers and their era. I don't think you're missing anything.

From some of the contributions here, it appears that some performers are looking beyond old instruments and trying to immerse themselves in older ways of feeling the music. I think this is to a great extent a matter of losing inhibitions and letting go of 20th-century obsessions with "correctness" and clinical perfection, which has resulted in so much anonymous music making in the manner that Ben Zander called "international bland."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Hubert Rutkowski's Chopin is the closest I've heard to the Chopin of Mauriz Rosenthal. The instrument is characterful because the sounds it makes are so rich in partials. He says he has explored Chopin's comments about fingering, especially the effect of fingering on colour. Rutkowski's rubato is organic and his touch and phrasing is dramatic and song like. Well recorded.


sounds much better than the modern grand. These days, my dislike for the the fuzzy bass and homogeneously dull tone quality of the modern grand has gotten stronger. 
Although Chopin doesn't classify as a late Romantic, it can't be stressed enough his pianos were not like the modern grand of today.

The message of a Pianist: Chopin's Pedal Markings in Barcarolle F# Major Op.60 Alisha Walker:
https://uottawa.scholarsportal.info/ottawa/index.php/intermezzo/article/view/1400
_"Due to structural differences, the pianos of 1846 were less resonant and the player could hold down the pedal for an entire phrase to give a "floating feeling" to the music. Today, if a performer holds down the pedal for an entire phrase the music would sound like a blur and the harmonic progression could be lost."_


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2019)

People have to get so absolute on this. In the 19th century instruments were different, not as different as in Bach's time, but different. Narrower bore wind instruments, gut strings. Brahms was said to prefer the sound of a natural horn to the newfangled valved horns. He liked his music performed by a smaller ensemble, not so string heavy. When you use those instruments you get a different sound, which tends to lend itself to a different style of performance. HIP is just another source of inspiration for performers.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Well I've given you a bunch of examples of Brahms recordings if you look up the thread, what more do you want?
> 
> I was trying to avoid keyboard, just to make it more interesting, but nevertheless, here are some Chopin examples.


Apologies, I missed your Brahms post.

I will certainly be exploring some of these performers further.

In general I think with this repertoire the original instruments are not that important because they're close enough to modern, but the approach is eye-opening.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> People have to get so absolute on this. In the 19th century instruments were different, not as different as in Bach's time, but different. Narrower bore wind instruments, gut strings. Brahms was said to prefer the sound of a natural horn to the newfangled valved horns. He liked his music performed by a smaller ensemble, not so string heavy. When you use those instruments you get a different sound, which tends to lend itself to a different style of performance. HIP is just another source of inspiration for performers.


Baron Scarpia , while it's true Brahms preferred the natural horn , valved horns were the norm through most of his life . He wrote his horn parts as though they were for natural horn, but by the time he wrote his symphonies and other orchestral works, valved horns were fully established in orchestras, and the art of playing the natural horn was going the way of the dinosaur , 
It's been revived in our time . but the natural horn was no longer the norm by around the mid 19th century . Schumann wrote his wonderful but horrendously difficult Konzertstuck for 4 horns and orchestra in 1849 as a showpiece for valved horns, and it's unplayable on the natural instrument . Schumann was the first major composer to champion the valved horn as a solo instrument ; unlike Brahms, he strongly believed the valved horn was they way to go in orchestral music and as a solo instrument .


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ People have been using period-style instruments for quite a while. I have, and enjoy, John Eliot Gardiner's recording of the _Symphonie Fantastique,_ which not only uses period instruments but was recorded in the very hall where the work was premiered. To me, though, the instruments are generally the least interesting and the least important part of performance practice. *Whether your strings are metal or gut is much less critical than the way you play the music.* Of course this isn't even a consideration with singing; as far as we can tell, the human voice hasn't changed.


isn't the way you play the music heavily dependent of what kind of instrument you play/what kind of strings/bow? If I'm not mistaken Beethoven even wrote some ornamentation in function of what kind of bow the 1st violin used (I think it was Schuppanzigh in case of the Kreutzer sonata).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> isn't the way you play the music heavily dependent of what kind of instrument you play/what kind of strings/bow? If I'm not mistaken Beethoven even wrote some ornamentation in function of what kind of bow the 1st violin used (I think it was Schuppanzigh in case of the Kreutzer sonata).


That depends. The violin bow was straight or slightly "bow shaped" in the baroque period, which made certain ways of articulating notes easier than with the modern bow, which makes it easier to maintain equal pressure on the string throughout the length of the stroke. The violinist can still achieve baroquey articulations with a modern bow if he chooses to. Gut versus metal for strings is a matter of timbre and volume and need have no effect on how you play. A violinist told me that Jascha Heifetz insisted on gut strings no matter what he was playing. Using a baroque bow on gut strings automatically gives a more authentic baroque sound, but skilled players can achieve a very good period effect on modern instruments.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

Just trying to bump this thread. I have a lot of HIP romantic recordings though I’m not sure what we’re defining as “late romantic.” One composer that I see less of from HIP ensembles or performers is Dvorak. I’m not big into romantic era music but I do listen to it from time to time and there’s a lot of it done with HIP. I must say I dislike the sound of the violin when it’s played with much vibrato. I find it intolerable. That’s one reason I like romantic HIP. But I like the sound of the historical pianos too. 
I wonder if there’s a thread about HIP Impressionism because that exists and it’s interesting too. The Kuijken ensemble has a great recording of Debussy’s chamber works.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

IMO, there are two aspects to HIP performance: the *performance style* and the use of *period instruments*.

Regarding late romantic music, performance style would involve portamento, vibrato, rubato and other rhythmic exaggerations not obvious from the score. The period instrument issue for music from the late 19th century would involve somewhat smaller orchestras, the use of gut strings and other modifications from modern instruments, e.g. natural horns, non-synthetic pads on the wind instruments, and of course pianos of the period, Erards are often used.

I have a recording of Schoenberg's _Verklärte Nacht_ and the Mahler "Adagietto", using most of these performance attributes and there is a big difference in how the music sounds. I liked it, but late Romantic music is not my main interest, so it wasn't a big deal for me.

*Verklärte Nacht by Arnold Schoenberg; Adagietto by Gustav Maher; Quartetto Serioso, Op. 95 by Ludwig van Beethoven, arranged for string orchestra by Gustav Mahler (dir.). The Smithsonian Chamber Players. BMG/deutsche harmonia mundi 05472-77374-2, 1996.*

View attachment 152069


CD recording of three string orchestra works from around the turn of the twentieth century, performed by an ensemble on instruments strung with gut strings and played in a period-appropriate manner. The differences between this historically-informed approach, based in part on the recordings and scores of work of Willem Mengelberg, Mahler's principle champion from 1904 to 1940 and modern practices, are discussed in Slowik's accompanying essay. The disk includes brief excerpts from two historical recordings of the Adagietto (one by Mengelberg, one by Bruno Walter), and a reading of Schoenberg's program notes for Verklärte Nacht read by Richard Hoffmann, the composer's secretary during the last three years of his life in Los Angeles.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Great post and great topic, Woodduck. Among many other points that could be made, I think there was a profound change in performance practices in the early- to mid-20th century resulting in part from recording, rather than live performance, becoming the most important medium for music, as well as the increasing size of typical live music venues. Of course, 20th century music itself could be much less amenable to the sort of free, improvisatory feel discussed in this video. The oboist in Barbirolli's Swan Lake would have to stay more strictly with the beat in The Rite of Spring or he could throw the entire orchestra off. And an overall need to be louder can tend to raise pitch, increase vibrato and slow tempo, three trends we have seen in a lot of non-HIP 20th and now 21st century classical music performance.

Listen to Jacques Thibaud and Alfred Cortot, play Franck's violin sonata in 1923.



Now here is a recent version by Maxim Vengerov and Khatia Buniatishvili:



Right away you can hear the faster tempo in the Thibaud/Cortot version, more use of portamento, less vibrato from the violin, and if you listen further, more rhythmic liberties, everything discussed in this video.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

Very glad this thread got bumped, extremely excited to delve deeper into the world of Romantic HIP! As I just wrote about in the other Romantic HIP thread, I was surprised to find out how much HIP has added to my enjoyment of Romantic works, which previously I had found relatively dull... but that recording of Adelina Patti linked earlier in this thread is just absolutely gorgeous, and to me an intuitively far more satisfying approach to that music than the modern one. Does anyone know of modern recordings of Romantic or earlier vocal works which approach it, in terms of, for example, portamento and rhythmic playfulness?

Additionally, as I'm listening to all this HIP solo piano music, I'm thinking more about the issue of tuning, and of course equal temperament would not have been used, and indeed makes the music much less alive in my opinion... Is there much discussion of this issue? It seems like amidst all the debate about technique and instruments there would be, but I haven't run into much, at least within the world of Romantic HIP.

Also, what got me excited about this whole idea initially was the Eroica Quartet, who have mostly recorded Mendelssohn but also Debussy, Ravel, and some others, and who have worked closely with the relatively iconoclastic musicologist Dr. Clive Brown to analyse performing scores and get a clearer sense of technique.... To my ears their recordings are about as different from most other 'HIP' quartets as those 'HIP' quartets are from non-HIP, and, coincidentally, extraordinarily beautiful. I had tried and failed to find more along these lines, so this thread is a real goldmine!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

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 !


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

superhorn said:


> 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 !


At the same time though I've heard an impossibly scratchy recording of Joseph Joachim and even through the scratches you can tell he played with a pretty dead hand. Hardly any vibrato at all.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

superhorn said:


> 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 !


I've already made a Thibaud / Vengerov comparison. Thibaud played with far less vibrato than is the modern, non-HIP norm. Now lets get super-obscure and turn to the flute. Two performances of Guilio Briccialdi's The Carnival of Venice, one from Robert Murchie (1884-1949) in 1923, and the other from one of the two 1976 James Galway albums that launched his career as a star soloist. This is particularly instructive, as Murchie's style, like Thibaud's, soon would become a relic of an earlier era. Nearly all modern players have adopted the so-called "French" style with heavy vibrato exemplified by Marcel Moyse (1889-1984). Ironically, before the early 20th century the French were as judicious as anyone with vibrato. But with the onset of higher fidelity electrical recording in the mid 1920s, Moyse saw the importance of the new medium, and felt that a heavier vibrato was needed for the soloist to stand apart.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

There is a nice period instrument recording of the Brahms horn trio on Youtube:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

cheregi said:


> that recording of Adelina Patti linked earlier in this thread is just absolutely gorgeous, and to me an intuitively far more satisfying approach to that music than the modern one. Does anyone know of modern recordings of Romantic or earlier vocal works which approach it, in terms of, for example, portamento and rhythmic playfulness?


Another superb example of interpretive freedom such as Patti exhibits in Mozart's "Voi che sapete" is Caruso's 1904 recording of "Una furtiva lagrima" from Donizetti's _L'elisir d'amore."_ Here are two typical modern interpretations for comparison:











Now Caruso:






As with Patti, I've never heard, nor can I even imagine, any contemporary singer exhibiting this degree of imagination and flexibility. Of course you need a superlative vocal technique to do it, and that's definitely an issue nowadays.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Nearly all modern players have adopted the so-called "French" style with heavy vibrato exemplified by Marcel Moyse (1889-1984). Ironically, before the early 20th century the French were as judicious as anyone with vibrato. But with the onset of higher fidelity electrical recording in the mid 1920s, Moyse saw the importance of the new medium, and felt that a heavier vibrato was needed for the soloist to stand apart


A similar thing occurred with bassoon performance practice...I don't have examples of bassoon playing from the late 19th century, but the use of vibrato was not used in German and Viennese orchestras until well into the 20th century.
In America, great pioneering bassoonists like J. Walter Guetter and Ben Kohon were using vibrato in the early 20th century - one of Guetter's greatest students, Wm. Polisi, used a wide, at times rapid vibrato..played in NYPO with J. Wummer, H.Gomberg.....it is standard practice in US, France, England (used French bassoons until mid- 20th.century), Italy, Czechoslovakia, Russia...the Viennese and Germans refrained until well into the 20th century..as late as 1970 in VPO...


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Another superb example of interpretive freedom such as Patti exhibits in Mozart's "Voi che sapete" is Caruso's 1904 recording of "Una furtiva lagrima" from Donizetti's _L'elisir d'amore."_ Here are two typical modern interpretations for comparison:


Again, sublime! I have got to listen to many more of these early recordings.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> A similar thing occurred with bassoon performance practice...I don't have examples of bassoon playing from the late 19th century, but the use of vibrato was not used in German and Viennese orchestras until well into the 20th century.
> In America, great pioneering bassoonists like J. Walter Guetter and Ben Kohon were using vibrato in the early 20th century - one of Guetter's greatest students, Wm. Polisi, used a wide, at times rapid vibrato..played in NYPO with J. Wummer, H.Gomberg.....it is standard practice in US, France, England (used French bassoons until mid- 20th.century), Italy, Czechoslovakia, Russia...the Viennese and Germans refrained until well into the 20th century..as late as 1970 in VPO...


Ironic, isn't it, that the minimal or no vibrato approach has largely prevailed in orchestral music with the clarinet? But that's no coincidence, imo. The modern A or B flat clarinet, as a single reed pitched nearly as high as the C flute, arguably has the loudest and most penetrating sound of the orchestral winds, not counting the piccolo, which is used sparingly by most composers. Heavy vibrato generally isn't needed, except perhaps in the most climactic moments, as in the opening clarinet solo in Rhapsody in Blue (which, though very much within the classical tradition imo, is written in a jazz-influenced style). What I find odd is that these basic stylistic approaches, though perhaps reasonable responses generally to the modern era with the importance of recording, larger live venues and louder music, have become such rigidly required practices in all circumstances. I'm told that flutists who do not use the standard, constant, modern-style vibrato simply will not get orchestral work.


----------



## BobBrines (Jun 14, 2018)

fluteman said:


> I'm told that flutists who do not use the standard, constant, modern-style vibrato simply will not get orchestral work.


Not that I was ever orchestral material, I learned flute vibrato in high school -- late 50's. Required if I aspired to first chair. Now in my old age playing exclusively recorder, I have a difficult time keeping a pure tone. BTW, my impression of vibrato in baroque music is pretty much what you hear from pop singers. Pure tone for the first half of a held note, vibrato for the last half.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

BobBrines said:


> BTW, my impression of vibrato in baroque music is pretty much what you hear from pop singers. Pure tone for the first half of a held note, vibrato for the last half.


I must say I think that is a good approach, you get the advantages of straight tone and vibrato. I don't know about baroque, but I think that singers in earlier music use it often.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

BobBrines said:


> Not that I was ever orchestral material, I learned flute vibrato in high school -- late 50's. Required if I aspired to first chair. Now in my old age playing exclusively recorder, I have a difficult time keeping a pure tone. BTW, my impression of vibrato in baroque music is pretty much what you hear from pop singers. Pure tone for the first half of a held note, vibrato for the last half.


That in particular is a real no-no in the orchestral world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The question of vibrato, vocal and instrumental, in music of all periods is contentious. There exists an extreme view that singers sang without vibrato, or at least that vibrato was generally disliked, up until the late 19th century, but no one with a real understanding of vocal technique and pedagogical tradition believes this. It's also contraindicated by the existence of the tremulant stop on organs, which is clearly intended to imitate the voice. The most we can concede is that excessive vibrato, or vocal tremulousness and wobble, has always, in general, been considered a fault. Vocal vibrato is a natural occurrence in a trained, freely functioning voice; it can be suppressed, but not artificially induced. The practice of beginning a tone without vibrato is one possible expressive effect, but there is no reason to consider it a norm for any period of music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The question of vibrato, vocal and instrumental, in music of all periods is contentious. There exists an extreme view that singers sang without vibrato, or at least that vibrato was generally disliked, up until the late 19th century, but no one with a real understanding of vocal technique and pedagogical tradition believes this. It's also contraindicated by the existence of the tremulant stop on organs, which is clearly intended to imitate the voice. The most we can concede is that excessive vibrato, or vocal tremulousness and wobble, has always, in general, been considered a fault. Vocal vibrato is a natural occurrence in a trained, freely functioning voice; it can be suppressed, but not artificially induced. The practice of beginning a tone without vibrato is one possible expressive effect, but there is no reason to consider it a norm for any period of music.


Yes, well said, and I agree with all those points. I was trying to make an additional point, and I am far from the first to make it. I haven't looked into this for a long time, but I seem to remember there are studies that show that people tend to speak at a higher pitch and more slowly, as well as louder, of course, when they are speaking in a very large venue (or outdoors, of course) and trying to be heard at a great distance. A heavier or wider and more consistent vibrato is another technique, both vocal and instrumental, that is used to be heard over and apart from, say, a large symphony orchestra in a large venue. Jascha Heifetz, a full-time soloist from early childhood, certainly understood how to use vibrato in this way. He represented a major departure from the likes of Jacques Thibaud, who was really a holdover from an earlier era.

As your linked video narrator shows, as the 20th century progressed, there was a greater emphasis on homogeneity and precision in orchestral sound, that I believe comes largely from the increasing importance and improved fidelity of recordings. Anyone who has played in or heard a good orchestra knows about the modern emphasis on blending and homogeneity. Moderate vibrato is a must, with heavier vibrato more appropriate for solos and soloists. I have a recording of Bruckner's 7th by Philippe Herreweghe where an (allegedly) HIP pre-20th century orchestral sound is used, and whatever one thinks about it [ed.: I just looked at it on Amazon, and one reviewer calls it "Bruckner lite"], it certainly sounds a lot different from anything most of us are likely used to, the main differences being, a smaller orchestra (i.e., fewer strings) and less vibrato. However, for me Herreweghe does not break sufficiently free from the modern emphasis on homogeneity and precision and let the music "breathe", and so doesn't make the most of the advantages of his smaller ensemble.

Reading the posts here at TC over the years, I've learned that most members here, whether they realize it or not, accept modern orchestral practice as a given and are often quite hostile or incredulous when they hear anything else.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

milk said:


> Just trying to bump this thread. I have a lot of HIP romantic recordings though I'm not sure what we're defining as "late romantic." One composer that I see less of from HIP ensembles or performers is Dvorak. I'm not big into romantic era music but I do listen to it from time to time and there's a lot of it done with HIP. I must say I dislike the sound of the violin when it's played with much vibrato. I find it intolerable. That's one reason I like romantic HIP. But I like the sound of the historical pianos too.
> I wonder if there's a thread about HIP Impressionism because that exists and it's interesting too. The Kuijken ensemble has a great recording of Debussy's chamber works.











This looks as though it has been inspired by research into this, if you ask David Greco for his paper, please let me see it.



> Just as it is hard to disentangle Schubert's own terminal illness from the story of Winterreise so too is it difficult to disentangle any performance of Winterreise from the rich tradition of recordings that have become seminal for such an important work. It is almost impossible to listen to the work in 2018 without inevitably conjuring up the familiar sounds of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Gerald Moore, who recorded the work seven times, or other such luminaries, like Herman Prey or Peter Schreier, all from the so-called "golden era" of recording. So revered are their interpretations that many listeners hardly think about how these songs might have sounded in the nineteenth century, with different vocal traditions and different pianos. Besides the written evidence documenting vocal techniques of Schubert's time, we can glean vestiges of earlier practices in the earliest recordings of artists like Sir Charles Stanley, Adelina Patti, and Emma Albani (to pick just a few). Luckily for us, perhaps the oldest singer to have left a legacy of gramophone recordings is famed Schubert interpreter, tenor Gustav Walter. He was born in 1834, only six years after Schubert's death. The styles of these singers radically contrast with the beautiful and familiar sounds of Fischer-Dieskau and others. On first listening, these recordings are challenging to modern ears, ugly even. We notice singers "indulging" in all kinds of "extravagant" expressive practices: sliding between notes (portamento), modifying the pulse of the music itself as well as using rubato (where the accompaniment is strict, but the melody is expressively dislocated), altering the written text and rhythms, and ornamenting more freely than we are accustomed to. But what if these were not extravagant, unthinking, or indulgent practices, but rather evidence of a highly conditioned and un-notated nineteenth-century style of singing that many composers (Schubert among them) expected-even desired-of their singers?


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330145589_WINTERREISE_in_2018_-_A_HIP_Initiative

https://www.abcmusic.com.au/discography/david-greco-erin-helyard-–-schubert-winterreise


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

We need to remember that there is far less new classical music composed today than there were in Bach's days up to say the early decades of the 20th century. New music were much more a daily matter back then (e.g. every Sunday, there would be a "new" church cantata). Today, we have far less new classical music and the impulse is more on performing old music. So given this, it is not surprising that our modern times have gradually lost the way heritage would have suggested on how to naturally perform, and we are more perfected performers than we are musicians working with new music. Hence even old music composing in say 1900 is subject to debate on HIP.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> We need to remember that there is far less new classical music composed today than there were in Bach's days up to say the early decades of the 20th century. New music were much more a daily matter back then (e.g. every Sunday, there would be a "new" church cantata). Today, we have far less new classical music and the impulse is more on performing old music. So given this, it is not surprising that our modern times have gradually lost the way heritage would have suggested on how to naturally perform, and we are more perfected performers than we are musicians working with new music. Hence even old music composing in say 1900 is subject to debate on HIP.


Interesting... I've tended to understand these changes more in connection with the conservatory system, like maybe changes in the structure of conservatory training, but I don't know enough about the history to really say. Of course we can just say playing with 'total score fidelity' as is now done is just 'the new fashion' and leave it at that... but I suspect it's more complex than that.



Mandryka said:


> This looks as though it has been inspired by research into this, if you ask David Greco for his paper, please let me see it.


I was so excited to listen to a Winterreise recording that promised to use a vocal technique informed by the style of early recordings... but I'm listening to it now and I'm just not hearing it? Maybe it's just too subtle for me, but I'm hearing it as, basically a modern conservatory style with a few very conspicuous gestures towards something else, seemingly just thrown in arbitrarily. Did you have a different impression? I think this pair should take some instruction from Clive Brown - it seems like every project he is involved in is magic.



fluteman said:


> Reading the posts here at TC over the years, I've learned that most members here, whether they realize it or not, accept modern orchestral practice as a given and are often quite hostile or incredulous when they hear anything else.


Try the music samples on https://c19hip.web.ox.ac.uk/accordes if you haven't already - seems like the first real earnest effort to apply the 'new Romantic HIP' insights to orchestral music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

cheregi said:


> Try the music samples on https://c19hip.web.ox.ac.uk/accordes if you haven't already - seems like the first real earnest effort to apply the 'new Romantic HIP' insights to orchestral music.


OK, thanks very much for that link, I listened. Now, I be interested in what you think how that compares to this version of the Tchaikovsky Serenade from 1947 with Mravinsky and the LPO. For example, compare the Valse in each version. The Oxford musicians are very good and produce a fat, lush tone, but that plodding tempo at the start makes it sound like that the dancers are wearing lead shoes, or have had a few too many vodkas. With Mravinsky, right away we're off and lightly whirling about the dance floor. The lean LPO sound doesn't sound as pretty on record, but in the 19th century that wasn't a factor. Mravinsky was another holdover from an earlier era, so we have that distinctive sound preserved on record.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

fluteman said:


> OK, thanks very much for that link, I listened. Now, I be interested in what you think how that compares to this version of the Tchaikovsky Serenade from 1947 with Mravinsky and the LPO.


Yes I see what you mean... It seems like the Accordes group is trying to pull off the 'extreme flexible/variable tempo' idea you hear in many early recordings, but they feel the need to play the piece over all much slower in order to give themselves enough 'wiggle room'. It's also interesting to note that while I certainly agree that Mravinsky sounds like a holdover from an earlier era, it seems he wasn't even particularly old in 1947, and he was born during the 20th century... were the Russians generally a bit more conservative? I don't have a clear picture of stylistic developments in 20th century performance practice beyond the '20s.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

cheregi said:


> Yes I see what you mean... It seems like the Accordes group is trying to pull off the 'extreme flexible/variable tempo' idea you hear in many early recordings, but they feel the need to play the piece over all much slower in order to give themselves enough 'wiggle room'. It's also interesting to note that while I certainly agree that Mravinsky sounds like a holdover from an earlier era, it seems he wasn't even particularly old in 1947, and he was born during the 20th century... were the Russians generally a bit more conservative? I don't have a clear picture of stylistic developments in 20th century performance practice beyond the '20s.


Yes, Soviet era Russia in particular had the reputation of retaining a very traditional orchestral sound in winds and brass as well as strings, intentionally rejecting "progressive" western ideas. Mravinsky conducted the LPO almost exclusively, leading that orchestra for nearly 50 years, so he provides an interesting window on the past, as does Pierre Monteux (1875-1964), who in his early career was assistant conductor to Edouard Colonne, who in turn had worked closely with Berlioz.

Spot on comments about the Oxford musicians, btw. It looks like this 19th-century HIP idea isn't as simple as it first may seem. And finally, on the topics of HIP Tchaikovsky, vibrato, string tone, and of course, portamento, listen to Leopold Auer:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

cheregi said:


> I was so excited to listen to a Winterreise recording that promised to use a vocal technique informed by the style of early recordings... but I'm listening to it now and I'm just not hearing it? Maybe it's just too subtle for me, but I'm hearing it as, basically a modern conservatory style with a few very conspicuous gestures towards something else, seemingly just thrown in arbitrarily. Did you have a different impression? I think this pair should take some instruction from Clive Brown - it seems like every project he is involved in is magic.
> 
> .


Haven't heard it, I'm listening more to Stockhausen than to Schubert at the moment. Why not write to him with your impressions? I bet you'll get a helpful reply.


----------

