# Why go HIP?-- or the scholarly edition versus free interpretation



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

The idea about going HIP has fascinated me a lot ever since I joined up with TC last month. I am definitely a champion of the freestyle interpretation of classical pieces without regard for the scholarly nature of the work. Examples including Glenn Gould (definitely not HIP) or Fazil Say (perhaps more controversial).

However I see value in doing HIP performances for scholarly records and a "definitive" interpretation. Stuff like the operas done on Opera Rara or DG's Archiv label. I admire Angela Hewitt for example.

Still maybe this is just me but I can't see a HIP recording as being part of the legendary canon... pianists like Richter or Horowitz aren't just HIP in nature.

So okay enough of my rant here.

Which performers do you see as being HIP or anti-HIP? Which recordings? What is the value of HIP? Does HIP mean a stricter interpretation of the work? Less creative?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

As far as Renaissance polyphony, HIP enhances the music. Heavy vibrato and thick voicings tend to muddle the lines.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Recognizing that even within a given historical performing tradition there was more than one way to play anything, HIP is valuable in approximating what a piece _might _have sounded like when it was first composed/performed. But the emphasis is on "might have." Some of it has some value (the sound of a fortepiano, for instance, or our best guess as to Baroque ornamentation), but there are still intangibles that will never be duplicable. And if music is to be a living entity, it is instructive to follow the interpretive fashions through the years and glean what they might have the music tell us -- even if it's not quite what the composer might have expected at the time. It's the difference between treating, for instance, the U.S. Constitution as a living, mutable document, and freezing it as it was meant in 1789 -- when the right to have a blunderbuss or a flintlock was unquestioned.  A performance either works or it doesn't.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

For me, I know that for Baroque opera going HIP is more essential than say doing Wagner or Mozart or Strauss. It is that precision and fine instrumentation that I value whenever I hear Vivaldi or Rameau voicings/instrumentations.

The 1960's recording of Guilio Casare with Sills (if I remember correctly) was great singing but from a scholarly standpoint not very accurate to the score or historical interpretation. I value the more recent recordings of Handel accordingly.


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

If anything, the HIP movement opened up a whole new world of possibilities for interpretation. In many cases it allows for interpretations that are more free - for instance, one HIP interpretation might use a harpsichord and cello for the continuo part, another might use an organ, and yet another might add in a bassoon. And obviously, the period practice of adding embellishments to a melodic line (often improvising them) gives the player a whole new means of expression. Many HIP groups embrace the spirit of improvisation that was evident in these periods, breathing new life into pieces that have otherwise become quite stodgy through uninspired performances. In comparison, the old romantic school of performance can seem restrictive and in some cases even dull and lifeless.

As a point of comparison, here are two performances of the third movement from Bach's concerto for two violins in d minor, played by four of the most "legendary" violinists of all time, yet all of whom are obviously entrenched in the romantic school of performance:









Now compare those with the period performance of the Freiburger Barockorchester: 




Now as an example of creativity in HIP, first take a listen to Perlman's interpretation of the second movement from Vivladi's "Winter" concerto: 



 (I should mention that Perlman is quite clearly anti-HIP, and I believe he has stated this himself before)

Now listen to Il Giardino Armonico's interpretation: 



A world of a difference! Certainly, Il Giardino Armonico is not a "pure" HIP group (some of their members use shoulder rests and/or chinrests) but they combine the elements of HIP with their own creative take on the music, producing something entirely unique and refreshing while still remaining quite faithful to the score and the practices of the period.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Nothing wrong with trying to be historically informed; sure beats ignorance. However, the primary reason I love HIP is that my listening enjoyment is enhanced a lot. As for creativity and freedom of expression, Ludric said it best above.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I need to revise my own views on Glenn Gould as not being HIP.

He was in his own way a form of HIP, just not orthodox HIP. He didn't agree with the predominant scholarship of his time. But a very insightful scholar... especially regarding Bach where he was eccentric HIP, thus being anti-HIP in a sort of way.

This documentary clip points out where he was acting HIP and follows through his interpretation:


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> I see value in doing HIP performances for scholarly records and a "definitive" interpretation.... but I can't see a HIP recording as being part of the legendary canon...


 Why can't music be performed as close as is knowable to how it was performed in the composer's time? Strictly speaking, would that not be more definitive? HIP/non-HIP is akin to the difference in conductors' interpretations and akin to transcriptions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, HIP stands for "historically-informed performance" and in fact is (usually) an attempt to play the piece as it might have been performed in the composer's time. But Bach left us precious few CDs, so there are always questions!


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

What I do not understand is how some musicians (and even great and famous musicians) can treat the notes and markings on the the score as absolute truth and remain as faithful to them as possible yet couldn't care less about the performance practices of the period and region the music was composed in. To me, those practices are just as important as the score itself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GGluek said:


> Recognizing that even within a given historical performing tradition there was more than one way to play anything, HIP is valuable in approximating what a piece _might _have sounded like when it was first composed/performed. But the emphasis is on "might have." Some of it has some value (the sound of a fortepiano, for instance, or our best guess as to Baroque ornamentation), but there are still intangibles that will never be duplicable. And if music is to be a living entity, it is instructive to follow the interpretive fashions through the years and glean what they might have the music tell us -- even if it's not quite what the composer might have expected at the time. It's the difference between treating, for instance, the U.S. Constitution as a living, mutable document, and freezing it as it was meant in 1789 -- when the right to have a blunderbuss or a flintlock was unquestioned.  A performance either works or it doesn't.


That says it very succinctly. Note that it's HIP - historically _informed_ - not HAP - historically _authentic_. In any music written before the age of sound recording, faithfulness to some presumed "original" performance practice can only be an educated guess. And the question that always arises immediately for me when someone releases a supposedly authentic performance of a 200- or 300-year-old opera is: exactly _whose_ performance does this represent? There's no question that in our day the influence of recordings and increasing globalization have (regrettably for many of us) homogenized musical performance somewhat. But there is equally no doubt that performance practices varied greatly, from locale to locale and from performer to performer, in 1615 or 1715 or 1815, and we even have recordings which show the striking individuality still exhibited by conductors, singers, etc., right up to the mid-twentieth century. Nothing argues better for the freedom of performers, in approaching old music, to consult the musicologists and learn what they can about the music's period of origin, but finally to go where the music itself takes them and give it to us as they personally feel and understand it. There will always be someone else to offer a different point of view - and the more points of view, the better.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

To make Mozart truly HIP, the audience would have to forgo bathing for a few weeks, acquire a population of lice and dress up in powdered wigs, whilst trying their best to forget that they have ever heard anything by Beethoven. I.e. in a sense HIP is a completely pointless exercise - we can never quite recapture it, and any HI performance remains a modern interpretation. The same is probably true of any modern recreation of any historical art - when you read, say, a modern translation of the Odyssey, you hear the characters speak in your mind in English, not Ancient Greek, and your visualization of the action is surely heavily coloured by Hollywood.

But I think the key phrase in my above rant is "in a sense." We cannot know what exactly a Tyrannosaur really looked like either, but this does not prevent us from making fascinating reconstructions, and HIP surely gets closer to the original sound than Toscanini. At the same time, this does not invalidate modern performances. It seems to me that one of the hallmarks of great art is precisely that it is so open to being recreated over and over, not just in the style of the performance, but even in the instrumentation. As guitar enthusiast, I shudder at the thought of a law being introduced that bans interpretations of Bach on any other instrument than what he wrote for! 

Personally I very much like some HIP interpretations - it really gives one a completely new view on things. E.g. those old tympani and horns give a whole new dimension to the sheer violence of some of Beethoven's orchestral writing, and one can understand far better why audiences at the time found it so startling. And the "chamber" nature of Baroque music often comes through in HIP in a way that a lush, modern performance does not capture. 

As many have pointed out, music is a living entity, and as far as I am concerned, the more the merrier - I see no reason for there to be an acrimonious competition between the two approaches. They give us two different views of the same beautiful thing. And if you then go a step further and completely change the instrumentation (say, by a completely electronic realization of a work, or orchestrating a string quartet or something like that) you get yet another new view. Some of these views are surely more "accurate" than others, but perhaps not necessarily any less valid or worthy.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I have read the above posts with interest and can't say I have much experience of HIP but what I have heard certainly gives a new take on some of the repertoire I love.
I came to classical music with Karajan and his big band Mozart and Beethoven, loved it then and still do, but HIP it ain't.
Recently on Spotify I started listening to the John Elliot Gardner Beethoven Cycle and it is like listening to a whole new experience. I find these performances really growing on me they seem to have a lightness and freshness that I never noted before


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gardiner's cycle placed first in a poll on another forum, with Karajan '63 a close second. It's quite cheap now and very worth picking up. See the poll results here.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R1L1EGKNY1ZC8X/ref=cm_srch_res_rpsy_alt_4


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Gardiner's cycle placed first in a poll on another forum, with Karajan '63 a close second. It's quite cheap now and very worth picking up. See the poll results here.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R1L1EGKNY1ZC8X/ref=cm_srch_res_rpsy_alt_4


Now I have to pick up another Beethoven symphony cycle due to the strong recommendations here . Plus it will contrast with my Karajan 63 set.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I love Andrew Manze, the baroque violinist. And I am learning to play baroque pieces, albeit on a modern violin, with a teacher who is a baroque performer. It's so funny to think that when I was a schoolgirl, we learned to do trills in Bach and Handel starting on the note, not the one above, with nineteenth century bowing styles too. Nothing was known about actual baroque style, or at least, it wasn't known in school violin lessons.

But I really love the various types of 'HIP' Baroque trill - they sound so sensitive, like a living bird, compared with the mechanical way I was taught. My teacher is very strong on improvisation, on strong and weak bars, accented and unaccented notes, lifts (I have a baroque replica bow), making phrases into patterns, 'spoon-shaped notes', dying falls. It's very subtle and it's absolutely fascinating. 

And so I just don't see HIP as dry and scholarly at all. I think it's become such a big movement that it is starting its own 'living tradition'. But as I said on another thread, whatever works and sounds beautiful is the most important thing to me, HIP or not.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2014)

Tell you what, Albert, check out two historical treatises (*Quantz*: _On Playing the Flute_; http://books.google.fr/books/about/On_Playing_the_Flute.html?id=K--ZaCLuVGAC&redir_esc=y) and *CPE Bach*: _An Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments_ (http://www.amazon.fr/Essay-True-Playing-Keyboard-Instruments/dp/0393097161). These will give you a very useful idea of period performance practice and a springboard into the the HIP ethos. Be careful, like in the Matrix film, once you swallow the blue HIP pill, there's no going back ! ....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

For orchestral music:

HIP orchestra sizes and instruments enable music to be heard better. Compare a 1960s non-HIP large symphony orchestra recording of a Mozart or Beethoven symphony and the woodwind and brass and timpani writing is often buried under vibrato-laden thick metallic strings with HIP recordings of the same works. These composers were in fact astonishing orchestrators, and their understanding of instrumental writing in an orchestral setting (especially instrumental part-writing) is impossible to be made clear to a listener unless instruments and techniques of the period are being employed. Beethoven's 5th is a brassier symphony than you think! Just listen to Immerseel's recording.


----------

