# To HIP, or not to HIP, that is the question



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

This has been debated for decades, I believe.

What is your position? 

Mine is that I don't care too much whether a performance is historically "à la page" or not.
I like Glenn Gould and Christophe Rousset, both have very good ideas to communicate to their listeners.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For Mozart keyboard concertos and sonatas, for Haydn keyboard sonatas and Beethoven keyboard sonatas, fortepianos only.

For Mozart Horn Concertos, I find the natural horn effortful to listen to. It always seems to be a bit off pitch. So modern French horn here.

For Bach keyboard works, harpsichord only.

For Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven symphonies, HIP-in proportion to the forces these composers originally wrote for and adjusted down for proper pitch.

For Haydn and Mozart string quartets, I do not like the wiry sound produced by HIP string quartets.
So, I would take the Emerson and Tokyo quartets here.

So the answer for me is it depends on the music.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Given the punishment Beethoven inflicted on his instruments, I imagine he'd find it the height of perversity for anyone with access to a modern grand piano to play his music on anything less robust.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

I'm pretty much a HIP fanatic in that I always prefer the music of any period to sound authentic to that period with period instruments and performing style. I can listen to and sometimes even appreciate the artistry of non-period performances but I don't want it in my CD collection. My number one pet peeve is the use of heavy and constant vibrato in pre-1850 music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Right on. Beethoven didn't "prefer" a flimsy fortepiano, he was stuck with it! Even complaining in his later years that it was an "unsatisfactory instrument". And the way he busted them up, no wonder.

With a modern Steinway, he would have been one happy little Ludwig. With a 97-key Bösendorfer 290 Imperial, he would have immediately croaked from an excess of bliss.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Classical period on I prefer modern.

For Bach I like modern except for his cantatas where I like Suzuki.
Milstein and Gendron for violin and cello suites.
Love Bach on the piano.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Right on. Beethoven didn't "prefer" a flimsy fortepiano, he was stuck with it! Even complaining in his later years that it was an "unsatisfactory instrument". And the way he busted them up, no wonder.
> 
> With a modern Steinway, he would have been one happy little Ludwig. With a 97-key Bösendorfer 290 Imperial, he would have immediately croaked from an excess of bliss.


How would he be happy? it would have been developed late in his life and by that time he couldn't hear it anyway.

Now if you said Mozart. Yes! He would have been delighted with the modern concert grand. No doubt about it. Chopsticks sounds awful on a Walter fortepiano copy.

What I wouldn't give to hear Mozart play his 23rd piano concerto on a modern concert grand.
Perhaps RCA has a recording in its vault alongside the old Caruso shellacs.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> How would he be happy? it would have been developed late in his life and by that time he couldn't hear it anyway.


If he was as deaf as all that, he wouldn't have complained, would he. Maybe that whole deafness thing was just a publicity trick to inflate his box office...naw, couldn't be! But -- earlier this year, Mamoru Samuragochi, "Japan's Beethoven", admitted that not only was he not deaf after all, but had hired other people to write his music.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-unmasking-of-japans-beethoven


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I find a lot of HIP music a little tinny and lacking in fullness of sound. I know that's how it would have been played during the composers lifetime but that doesn't mean the composer would have wanted the music limited to HIP. If modern instruments had been available they would have used them. I own a lot of HIP recordings and I enjoy them but I never find them quite as exhilarating or satisfying as modern instrument performances. In fact I find most of them rather "dry".

Kevin


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2014)

Absolutely go with HIP, but not to the exclusion of excellent recordings on modern instruments. Go where beauty leads you, but always at least give HIP a shot.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> This has been debated for decades, I believe.
> 
> What is your position?
> 
> ...


I'm with you. I'll look for HIP(p) if available, and _often very much prefer it_, but I'm not about to disregard or bypass a / some terrific musicians and a fine interpretation simply because it is not HIPP.


----------



## psu (Sep 2, 2014)

I personally don't really go for the HIP style. It tends not to sound as good, and I'm not all that concerned with arbitrary notions of correctness.

One sad side effect of the whole movement is that you can't hear baroque music played by mainstream orchestras anymore unless they bring in a guest band that is more "historically correct." I also dislike how Mozart and sometimes even Beethoven are played with stripped down ensembles that just don't sound good in the big hall. I think some Mozart deserves a big sound and it makes me sad to never hear it that way, at least not in Pittsburgh.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

I prefer HIP mostly but not always. 

For example, I still prefer Carlos Kleiber's Beethoven 5 & 7 to all other recordings. 

But for Bach's Cello and Violin, modern instruments and style of playing just don't do it for me.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I used to be HIP only, but now I don't care as long as it's.good.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The early days of HIP were afflicted squally scratchy playing. I still run for cover when some of the Harnoncourt Bach recordings hit the radio. Now the standards of playing have improved greatly, and players on more modern instruments have adopted some HIP practices, so there is a convergence towards the middle.
There is no substitute for fine musicanship.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Triplets said:


> There is no substitute for fine musicanship.


The bedrock foundation of it all, and _Amen to that_.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't have musical training; the HIP not-HIP debate is pretty much lost on me, as far as hearing a difference goes. I hear the music the same as I would hear any other performance done by different performers: it is another interpretation.

While I can definitely tell the difference between a harpsichord and a modern piano, I am not certain that I would necessarily notice the difference between a modern piano and a fortepiano, unless I read the album notes (I have some discs, so I should give it a shot). I have read about natural horns, but have I ever noticed anything special? No. I have both Karajan and Norrington's Beethoven Symphony cycles. I feel that the Karajan is more sonically saturated, while the instruments appear more distinct and clearer in the Norrington. I have the impression of listening to something more like a large ensemble and not an orchestra, but the difference is not so huge that it stands out unless I am actively listening for it. I have some of Haydn's symphonies conducted by Brüggen and Harnoncourt. I don't think I noticed anything different. I suppose there is supposed to be a more spare orchestra? I recently got a Jochum set, so I ought to make a comparison.

I don't see what the big deal is. Why can't pieces be performed to both sound the way they did 'in the old days' and the way today's orchestra would make them sound. I think that to hear the difference (and to understand what is different about it) would be fascinating. I also enjoy arrangements and transcriptions for different instruments and groups of performers, say small ensemble, string orchestra, string quartet, solo piano, etc.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> I don't have musical training; the HIP not-HIP debate is pretty much lost on me, as far as hearing a difference goes. I hear the music the same as I would hear any other performance done by different performers: it is another interpretation.
> 
> While I can definitely tell the difference between a harpsichord and a modern piano, I am not certain that I would necessarily notice the difference between a modern piano and a fortepiano, unless I read the album notes (I have some discs, so I should give it a shot). I have read about natural horns, but have I ever noticed anything special? No. I have both Karajan and Norrington's Beethoven Symphony cycles. I feel that the Karajan is more sonically saturated, while the instruments appear more distinct and clearer in the Norrington. I have the impression of listening to something more like a large ensemble and not an orchestra, but the difference is not so huge that it stands out unless I am actively listening for it. I have some of Haydn's symphonies conducted by Brüggen and Harnoncourt. I don't think I noticed anything different. I suppose there is supposed to be a more spare orchestra? I recently got a Jochum set, so I ought to make a comparison.
> 
> I don't see what the big deal is. Why can't pieces be performed to both sound the way they did 'in the old days' and the way today's orchestra would make them sound. I think that to hear the difference (and to understand what is different about it) would be fascinating. I also enjoy arrangements and transcriptions for different instruments and groups of performers, say small ensemble, string orchestra, string quartet, solo piano, etc.


One difference with many HIP recordings is the tempi. Sometimes they are just crazy fast, as if all the players had overdosed on Ritalin.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Triplets said:


> There is no substitute for fine musicanship.


..exactly what I was about to write! 
I always look for good interpretations first and am rarely bothered what marketing label it has dangling on its toe!

/ptr


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Triplets said:


> One difference with many HIP recordings is the tempi. Sometimes they are just crazy fast, as if all the players had overdosed on Ritalin.


It's curious, what with a more leisured pace of life then and general instrumental skill lower than today's.

In one of his talks on the Beethoven piano sonatas, Andras Schiff notes how his contemporaries disregard the brutally fast metronome markings with the claim that the composer's metronome must have been regulated differently than ours. Schiff goes on to describe visiting one of the Beethoven dwelling-place/museums and being allowed to handle the great man's metronome. With impeccably dry delivery, he observed, "It works."


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

HIP...with the caveat that it's performed by musicians who are dedicated to the period instrument. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

The example I often use is Venice Baroque Orchestra's Four Seasons. The music was written to suit these instruments. During the quicker passages (eg. Summer - Presto) you can hear every note on the page where the sound got quite muddy on modern instruments.
Compare this with your fave non-HIP recording.


----------



## Declined (Apr 8, 2014)

I think it would depend on the composer. Beethoven sounds good HIP (Immerseel's set is perhaps one of the most intense). While Mahler could use a romantic touch.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Declined said:


> I think it would depend on the composer. Beethoven sounds good HIP (Immerseel's set is perhaps one of the most intense). While Mahler could use a romantic touch.


But the instruments and tecniques used in Mahler's days are more or less like today's, aren't they?


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

For a long time, I resisted HIP because, frankly, the sound of the instruments used to go through my head like a knife--especially the violins. And, yes, tempi did seem ridiculously fast. THEN I began listening to Handel...a lot of Handel...a quite astonishing amount of Handel, bordering on obsession and...I got it. The music just sounded so much better...livelier...a greater sense of presence, somehow, than it ever sounded on those old Vanguard recordings by Somary or the Arkiv Richter recordings. Still prefer classical and romantic repertoire on modern instruments, but for baroque--and especially Handel--I'm down with HIP.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

For post-harpsichord keyboard works, I think the ideal would be the kind of Erard that Liszt used. Even Ravel preferred such pianos to the modern concert piano. They have the best of both worlds: polyphonic clarity and characterfulness of the early fortepiano and (much of) the robustness of the modern concert piano.

For orchestra, I like historically informed interpretations because that usually means clarity. You can hear instruments other than the strings. I'm also a believer in the importance of correct tempi and I guess I like the lighter sound of period orchestras for certain composers (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart).


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I prefer HIP recordings over non-HIP ones. I agree with most of the posts here, in that quality of performance trumps whether it is historically informed or not. I find that good HIP groups, like Tafelmusik, The Acadamy of Ancient Music, The Collegium Aureum, Pinnock's The English Concert, ect. bring the sounds of the past into the present. When I listen to music, chiefly Baroque, I find that it spurs my imagination, and transports me mentally back in time. When I close my eyes and listen to a HIP recording, I am no longer in the 21st century but in the 16th, 17th and 18th. At heart, I feel I belong more to those eras than the present one, so listening to a HIP recording at least provides that transporting illusion.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I can't imagine listening only to one or the other. That would be like eating the same thing for dinner every night of your life.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It has been said that many new recordings today using modern instruments play with some awareness of historic practice anyway. It's only if you listen to the modern instruments orchestra recordings from decades ago that you might hear a Vivaldi or Mozart sound like a Bruckner. Whatever floats your boat but the fact that there is a lot of HIP bands around show they are successful. I read it's only since the 1970s that HIP really took off.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I can't imagine listening only to one or the other. That would be like eating the same thing for dinner every night of your life.


Couldn't agree more. It's more about being aware and comparing the results.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Musicians should play music in whatever manner makes sense to them. There is scholarship that tells us certain things about performance practices of earlier times, and any player confronted with a piece of music ought to be curious about whatever information is available. But much will never be known about what actually happened in 1650 or 1750 or 1850 when the bow hit the string. I love the sound of 18th-century instruments played with historically conscious style; but "historically conscious" is only our approach to authenticity, not authenticity itself. 

It's interesting to me that there are now hundreds of performing groups striving to play "authentic" Vivaldi - and often sounding marvelous doing it - while hardly anyone seems to be listening to musicians of the Romantic period, many of whom lived long enough to make recordings, in order to learn to feel, play, and sing Romantic music with "authentic" style. Who now plays like Ignaz Friedman or Sarasate, sings like Battistini, or conducts like Mahler (granted we have no recordings, but plenty of testimony) or Mengelberg? I suspect it's easier and safer to reach farther back in time and construct a speculative version of "authenticity" than to comprehend - or enjoy - the actual sensibility of our more immediate forbears.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

HIP has undergone transformation since the screechy mid-'80's recordings. Via string and bowing modifications, and in some cases, pitch.

I find much of today's HIP palatable. If it sounds right to me for a particular composer (generally pre-LvB) and work, and I need it, then I'll buy. 

My balking at usually involves disagreeable tempi, tone, and balance of instruments. Exceedingly slow tempi and steely tone is the immediate kiss of death.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

To me it's important to hear the instruments that a composer conceived his music for. For Mozart, that's the fortepiano, not the Steinway Grand.

The argument is not on which keyboard does the music sound better; simply which is more honest in conveying the intentions of the composer.

Would Mozart have preferred a Steinway to play and write for. Of course! He would have been ecstatic, I'm sure.
But he didn't. He had a Walter fortepiano. So that's the instrument I desire to hear his keyboard works played on.

Folks, you can hear Mozart's music played on a skin flute for all I care.

Listen to whatever you like on whatever instrument you like.

Just don't ask me to justify my preferences. I don't have to.

Tolerance is a virtue. :tiphat:


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Whatever sounds better.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Modern instruments sound better. Mozart sure wouldn't pick a rinky tink fortepiano if he had the choice. He'd go with the Steinway. It's OK to use a food processor to make your great grandmother's Christmas cookie recipe too.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

I go with hip but not with HIP HOP that is for sure.No rap music here.
View attachment 50778


----------



## Corvus (Aug 9, 2012)

I usually prefer HIP. Just today I was listening to both the Queyras and Wispelwey versions of Schubert's Arpeggione on Spotify. While Queyras' cello playing was unmatched, I actually preferred the Wispelwey version simply because his accompanist used a forte piano which sounded crisper and more defined. For some reason the other's modern piano had a slightly mushy, muffled sound. There are exceptions to this of course. I also listened to Helene Grimaud play a Brahms piano concerto (I assume on a modern piano) and I was blown away (in a good way)!


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

I have listened to plenty of both, and just can't adjust to HIP performances. They're interesting; it's nice to know what the pieces sounded like as they were conceived, but I simply prefer modern instruments. For a while, HIP performances provided a novel sound, but I soon grew tired of hearing them. I think one of the problems is that I'm too aware of the medium upon which a work is played, and it distracts me from the music itself.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

hpowders said:


> To me it's important to hear the instruments that a composer conceived his music for. For Mozart, that's the fortepiano, not the Steinway Grand.
> 
> The argument is not on which keyboard does the music sound better; simply which is more honest in conveying the intentions of the composer.
> 
> ...


Thanks hpowders, it's a keen observation indeed but... was Mozart's music played in 2000-seats concert halls? Did he have the way to record his music and play his CDs at home? Did we grow up with the same "hear" of that of a 18th-century guy?
Our hearing environment and experience, generally speaking, are quite different from that of Mozart's time. 
Music is not a static snapshot of the past, imo.

In the HIP or non-HIP debate, the performer plays always *the* central role. A very good example of this can be found in the recent ECM recording of the Beethoven's Diabellis by Andras Schiff. He plays them twice: the first time on a Bechstein Grand from 1921, the second on a fortepiano from Beethoven's days. Both "HIP" and "non-HIP" are truly amazing, although very different, and the credit goes to Maestro Schiff, not to the instruments...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Thanks hpowders, it's a keen observation indeed but... was Mozart's music played in 2000-seats concert halls? Did he have the way to record his music and play his CDs at home? Did we grow up with the same "hear" of that of a 18th-century guy?
> Our hearing environment and experience, generally speaking, are quite different from that of Mozart's time.
> Music is not a static snapshot of the past, imo.
> 
> In the HIP or non-HIP debate, the performer plays always *the* central role. A very good example of this can be found in the recent ECM recording of the Beethoven's Diabellis by Andras Schiff. He plays them twice: the first time on a Bechstein Grand from 1921, the second on a fortepiano from Beethoven's days. Both "HIP" and "non-HIP" are truly amazing, although very different, and the credit goes to Maestro Schiff, not to the instruments...


Thats all fine GioCar. I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of listening or thinking.

Like what you like and enjoy it!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bruce said:


> I have listened to plenty of both, and just can't adjust to HIP performances. They're interesting; it's nice to know what the pieces sounded like as they were conceived, but I simply prefer modern instruments. For a while, HIP performances provided a novel sound, but I soon grew tired of hearing them. I think one of the problems is that I'm too aware of the medium upon which a work is played, and it distracts me from the music itself.


That's fine. A lot of people prefer modern instruments. Enjoy it!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Corvus said:


> I usually prefer HIP. Just today I was listening to both the Queyras and Wispelwey versions of Schubert's Arpeggione on Spotify. While Queyras' cello playing was unmatched, I actually preferred the Wispelwey version simply because his accompanist used a forte piano which sounded crisper and more defined. For some reason the other's modern piano had a slightly mushy, muffled sound. There are exceptions to this of course. I also listened to Helene Grimaud play a Brahms piano concerto (I assume on a modern piano) and I was blown away (in a good way)!


Queyras is also quite fine in the Bach cello suites, if that's your cup of tea.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Mozart would've loved a Steinway...but might he have scored differently had he owned one?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Among HIPsters, I like *Max Pommer* (Händel, Bach), *Harnoncourt* (Zelenka, Bach, alternative ideas concerning Mozart, Schubert etc.), and guess-you-can-call-him-HIP *Jordi Savall*.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> Mozart would've loved a Steinway...but might he have scored differently had he owned one?


Yes. He would have written more like Chopin.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Yes. He would have written more like Chopin.


What...with lots of young women draped over his piano? Yeah...probably right.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Right on. Beethoven didn't "prefer" a flimsy fortepiano, he was stuck with it! Even complaining in his later years that it was an "unsatisfactory instrument". And the way he busted them up, no wonder.
> 
> With a modern Steinway, he would have been one happy little Ludwig. With a 97-key Bösendorfer 290 Imperial, he would have immediately croaked from an excess of bliss.


This is a non sequitur. The question is whether the music can be played correctly on a Steinway, not what LvB or anyone else might have preferred or was stuck with.

. One problem is to do with sforzandi in quiet music, like you have in the op 13/i -- to prevent the sforzandi from ruining the piano feel by sounding like fortes. Beethoven was keen on sforzandi. There are other problems -- the sound of trills for example, the sound on a fp, with its limited sustain, is so different in (eg) op 111/ii, that it's as if the move to a Steinway has changed the character of the music.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Yes. He would have written more like Chopin.


I suspect so, too, though it's always a bit dicey to attempt to determine what someone would have done. But a composer of Mozart's talents would have been able to take advantage of the wider dynamic range of the more modern instrument, I would think. Contrariwise, I wonder how someone like Bartók or Stravinsky would have composed if only fortepianos were available? Perhaps the closest we can come to testing that out is by listening to some of the music John Cage composed for toy pianos.


----------



## AClockworkOrange (May 24, 2012)

I don't see an either/or argument really.

We live in a time where we are fortunate enough to have *both* approaches available. Composers may have been limited by the instruments of their time - performers and listeners of today are not.

What sounds better to whom is entirely subjective to the individual and their tastes. Just because something my be more historically correct (as we can never be 100% certain that our facsimile is entirely correct - people listen differently, venues are larger, expectations are different, etc) doesn't automatically mean that it is better.

I love having the option to choose depending on my mood and the composer. Why would I impose limits on myself?

To each his or her own.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bruce said:


> I suspect so, too, though it's always a bit dicey to attempt to determine what someone would have done. But a composer of Mozart's talents would have been able to take advantage of the wider dynamic range of the more modern instrument, I would think. Contrariwise, I wonder how someone like Bartók or Stravinsky would have composed if only fortepianos were available? Perhaps the closest we can come to testing that out is by listening to some of the music John Cage composed for toy pianos.


Bartok's piano concertos as well as Prokofiev's would have strained the fortepiano to the breaking point.

The harpsichord would have been more durable. How about Bartok's second piano concerto played on harpsichord-a neo-gothic sound!!


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

My allegiance lies heavily with the HIP camp. I am not in principle opposed to modern interpretations of bygone compositions, and I find many of them worthy endeavours, but I find myself almost invariably going for the best available historically informed performance of such works at the moment of purchasing.


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

hpowders said:


> For Mozart Horn Concertos, I find the natural horn effortful to listen to. It always seems to be a bit off pitch. So modern French horn here.


To think I was beginning to like you.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I am vehemently against HIP as a philosophy, but I have nothing against a HIP performance with artistic (as opposed to music historical) merits.


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

To me, there are good HIP group and bad ones (some early ones were,,, bad), good modern groups and bad ones. I enjoy Haydn's Op 20 string quartet set performed by Lindsays Q, Tatrai Q, Kodaly Q, Buchberger Q, Q Mosaiques, Angels Q, London Haydn Q, Doric Q, Jerusalem Q and others, regardless HIP or not. Both performance style can yield pleasant music, taking advantage of the style of their choice.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

There aren't many bad HIP groups anymore. Been there. Done that. Bad HIP is soooooo 1970.


----------



## Jeff W (Jan 20, 2014)

I enjoy both. Can't imagine only having one or the other.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Jeff W said:


> View attachment 50887
> 
> 
> I enjoy both. Can't imagine only having one or the other.


I like comparing modern performances of Haydn symphonies to HIP and for me, HIP always seems to win.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

What's Dorati? Chopped liver?!


----------

