# Period Instrument and Modern Instrument Orchestras for Baroque. Which one and why?



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

I am now on holidays, I am sick and don't feel good anyway so I will be at home and I want to discuss about this eternal topic: period instruments or modern instruments in baroque music, which one do you listen, prefer, and why? I want to read your point of view. Also those that listen Baroque period, do you listen to other periods as well? is your criteria the same for such periods?

Please comment freely.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I prefer period instruments for baroque music, especially the strings. I'm not into period instruments because of historical accuracy; I just enjoy them much more. Modern strings tend to have a sour sound to my ears.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I much prefer modern to baroque. Give me a piano or bass continuo over harpsichord any day.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

bharbeke said:


> I much prefer modern to baroque. Give me a piano or bass continuo over harpsichord any day.


Together we have all the instruments covered.


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

I tend to prefer period instruments with baroque music, not necessarily for historical reasons or issues of accuracy, but because they just sound better to me. Usually. When I first started listening, many years ago, I had no idea that there was any issue of period vs. modern. I was utterly fascinated by this thing called "Classical Music," that I listened to everything I could and started collecting. Some years later, I ran across some Bach harpsichord concerti, which I was familiar with, by a "period group." (Described as such). Curious, I picked it up, and when I listened to it, it was like switching from old TV to HD, only in sound. Every single instrument seemed to be crystal clear; melodic lines, harmony, polyphony, all laid out clear as a bell. I went back to the recordings I knew, and suddenly they sounded dull, muddy, and completely overdone. Suffice to say, I was blown away. Now, not every non-period recording sounds dull or bloated to me, but in general, I do prefer period ensembles.

For the classical era, that is also usually the case. Another example. I love Haydn. Everything. All of it, completely, utterly, and unabashedly. His symphonies are my favorites. So imagine when I first heard his Paris symphonies played by Bernstein, who I liked very much at the time, and was so underwhelmed that I thought, "Wow! Something by Haydn I don't like!" It was weird. I tried again. Nope. So I gave up on those for a while. Then I ran across Harnoncourt's Paris symphonies. Again, it was like switching to HD. Since then, I've also noticed that I generally don't like Mozart played by the "Big Heavies" (BPO, VPO, Chicago, New York, etc.).

Once you get to the romantic era, I suppose sometime late Beethoven, then it doesn't matter, as long as the basic forces are covered and the strings get that big lush sound.

That's just me, and it's just what sounds good to me. I don't know enough about the mechanics of music and instruments to comment on vibrato or tuning, whether it's in A=440 or A=430, or any of that.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm generally agnostic in the HIP vs. modern instrument debate - I enjoy both, providing that they're well and imaginatively played.

The only real exception would be Vivaldi - I think that his music sounds much better in authentic, period instrument performances.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

> For the classical era, that is also usually the case. Another example. I love Haydn. Everything. All of it, completely, utterly, and unabashedly. His symphonies are my favorites. So imagine when I first heard his Paris symphonies played by Bernstein, who I liked very much at the time, and was so underwhelmed that I thought, "Wow! Something by Haydn I don't like!" It was weird. I tried again. Nope. So I gave up on those for a while. Then I ran across Harnoncourt's Paris symphonies. Again, it was like switching to HD.


Actually, the Paris symphonies were written for a larger orchestra than Haydn's other symphonies - perhaps that's why I like Bernstein's Paris set. While I generally prefer HIP Haydn, I also love "big band" Haydn when it's done well, with a conductor who knows what he's doing.



> Since then, I've also noticed that I generally don't like Mozart played by the "Big Heavies" (BPO, VPO, Chicago, New York, etc.).


Don't blame the size of the orchestra - most of the time, Mozart and Haydn, when played by full symphony orchestras, are being led by conductors who have no real facility in Classical era symphonies. Try Bruno Walter's Mozart.


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> Actually, the Paris symphonies were written for a larger orchestra than Haydn's other symphonies - perhaps that's why I like Bernstein's Paris set. While I generally prefer HIP Haydn, I also love "big band" Haydn when it's done well, with a conductor who knows what he's doing.
> 
> I didn't know that! But I still prefer a smaller ensemble.
> 
> Don't blame the size of the orchestra - most of the time, Mozart and Haydn, when played by full symphony orchestras, are being led by conductors who have no real facility in Classical era symphonies. Try Bruno Walter's Mozart.


I will look out for Walter. Actually, it seems like I read that Mozart liked bigger orchestras. But all I know is what I've heard, and I usually like it smaller. An exception is the Divertimento, K. 287. I've heard it played one person per part, so the first violin is a solo; and I've heard it played as a string section, so there's multiple people playing the first violin part. Both are amazing, to me. I can't really decide which I prefer.

Thanks, wkasimer!


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

Oops, that didn't come out like I thought it would (mixed what I wrote into your quote). Not sure how to split up quotes. But I didn't know Haydn wrote the Paris symphonies for a larger orchestra.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

T Son of Ander said:


> Oops, that didn't come out like I thought it would (mixed what I wrote into your quote). Not sure how to split up quotes. But I didn't know Haydn wrote the Paris symphonies for a larger orchestra.


Cut and paste what you're quoting, highlight it, and then hit the far right icon on the toolbar. If you want to break it up, do this on the individual chunks of text.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I prefer good HIP recordings regardless of the period in question. Trying to make music sound the way the composer intended it to often pays off.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

T Son of Ander said:


> I tend to prefer period instruments with baroque music, not necessarily for historical reasons or issues of accuracy, but because they just sound better to me. Usually. When I first started listening, many years ago, I had no idea that there was any issue of period vs. modern. I was utterly fascinated by this thing called "Classical Music," that I listened to everything I could and started collecting. Some years later, I ran across some Bach harpsichord concerti, which I was familiar with, by a "period group." (Described as such). Curious, I picked it up, and when I listened to it, it was like switching from old TV to HD, only in sound. Every single instrument seemed to be crystal clear; melodic lines, harmony, polyphony, all laid out clear as a bell. I went back to the recordings I knew, and suddenly they sounded dull, muddy, and completely overdone. Suffice to say, I was blown away. Now, not every non-period recording sounds dull or bloated to me, but in general, I do prefer period ensembles.


That's approximately how it was for me too. Before I was aware that period instruments were a thing, I just couldn't get into Bach or Handel. Something just sounded "off" to me. I assumed it was a simple case of "oh well, I guess I don't like Bach's orchestral music", but then I heard his violin concertos on period instruments and it all clicked.

Years ago, my wife's first encounter with Handel opera was Andreas Scholl singing _Ombra mai fu_, which she was blown away by. Not long afterward we listened to a recording of that piece, from the 1960s I think, with a tenor singing and a big modern orchestra, and she was like, "this sounds like _crossover_!"


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I think it's a complex question. 

With most pieces of early music I think it's perfectly possible to play them well on modern instruments, it's just that modern instrument musicians never really knew how to read the score. You know, violinists would play with ubiquitous vibrato, pianists would play rigidly and with phrasing which rode roughshod over rhetorical structure in the music etc. 

Then for the past 40 years or more we've seen a flowering of historically informed performance on original instruments. 

And now, finally, I think we're starting to see a handful of modern instrument players getting the idea from the HIP musicians, and they're starting to produce half decent performances. 

In fact I think the biggest challenge is now with 19th music. My feeling is that Chopin and Brahms will start to go through a similar process.


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I think it's a complex question.
> 
> In fact I think the biggest challenge is now with 19th music. My feeling is that Chopin and Brahms will start to go through a similar process.


I've sometimes wondered about 19th century music. So much of it is performed with huge orchestras and massive sound. How big of an orchestra did Mendelssohn or Brahms or Tchaikovsky have? What if you pared it down some? I know Wagner did have huge orchestras, at least for the Ring. Or at least he specified huge orchestras; whether they were actually played that way, I don't know.

And that's all just size of orchestra. How did Chopin himself play? Are there specific descriptions of his playing? Did he ever leave extensive notes about how to play it? What about Liszt? What about composer/conductors who led performances of their works? Did they leave notes about what went well and what didn't? I think in some cases, the answer is yes. But how extensive? And does anyone pay any attention to that?

One thing I notice when I listen to music, particularly the late classical era and into the romantic era is that sometimes I'm listening to something, and a movement is marked Allegro. Then the next movement is Andante, but it sounds about the same tempo, just quieter. My understanding is that "andante" has gotten slower since the time of Mozart and Haydn. But still, even a Mozart andante should be slower than an allegro. Yes, I realize there is a range in tempo designations. Also with solo works, there is rubato.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. Oh, to have a time machine...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's really quite simple.

Whichever performance communicates the spirit of the music most convincingly.

I would rather hear a fine old-school Karl Richter performance of Bach than an overly fast out of tune HIP performance that I'm supposed to convince myself is something Bach would have recognized and gotten all warm and fuzzy over. I doubt it!!

If Bach heard some of these HIP performances of his music, he would have stopped composing and become a Lutheran Minister.


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

hpowders said:


> It's really quite simple.
> 
> Whichever performance communicates the spirit of the music most convincingly.
> 
> ...


Quite possibly! Even preferring HIP, I have heard some that were so awful sounding, I thought my ears would never recover.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

T Son of Ander said:


> Quite possibly! Even preferring HIP, I have heard some that were so awful sounding, I thought my ears would never recover.


I have a few fine HIP performances of Bach, Mozart and Haydn. If it moves me, fine. Some HIP bands can actually play in tune these days. Their instrumental techniques have improved considerably from the scrawny sounds of 50 years ago.

One thing: I find Bach on harpsichord preferable to Bach on piano.

Orchestral stuff, I generally prefer modern instruments.

But it is fascinating to hear a Mozart piano concerto played on fortepiano with a HIP band, approximating the "sound" Mozart was writing for.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

bharbeke said:


> I much prefer modern to baroque. Give me a piano or bass continuo over harpsichord any day.


Basso continuo most commonly uses a harpsichord...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Modern instruments for me...the deficiencies of period instruments I find quite distracting.
Small ensemble with modern instruments can be very effective.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> Modern instruments for me...the deficiencies of period instruments I find quite distracting.


All of them or just certain instruments?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> All of them or just certain instruments?


Most all of them...I find it distracting, and it reduces my enjoyment of the music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

For Baroque and earlier, I usually prefer period instruments for the transparency and color they bring to ensembles. Vibratoless gut strings can sound wan and whiny, though, and can ruin some HIP performances for me. In solo keyboard music of the period, where timbre is not an issue, I see no point in historical purism; a piano can play Bach as clearly as a harpsichord, and more expressively because of its dynamic control, something Bach would certainly have realized when he expressed interest in early fortepianos. Baroque music is not typically wedded to specific timbres, and period practice was highly pragmatic: you played on the instruments that were available, and even rescored the music if necessary. Modern instrument performances are thus perfectly authentic.

For Classical period music either period or modern instruments can be satisfying. I can't imagine composers of the time objecting to the slightly more homogenized sound of a modern orchestra, and certainly not to having more players available than they typically had. Mozart reportedly enjoyed hearing his music with a large string section. There are some works in which raucous natural horns and quacky oboes are delightfully colorful; I think mainly of Haydn's rusticity and humor, and even Brahms requested a natural (valveless) horn for the "hunting" effect it brought to his horn trio. Older instruments can also add a fiercer edge to Beethoven.

The 19th century saw fairly rapid changes in instrumental technology, and some of these were important in allowing composers more flexibility in the demands they could make on players and the sheer sonorousness they could get from orchestras. My feeling is that most composers and players appreciated the changes, that composers didn't expect a specific timbre from the instruments they wrote for, and that adhering to the instruments supposedly used for works when they were composed is misplaced purism that misrepresents the evolutionary spirit and diversity of the time. As late as the mid-20th century, symphony orchestras had distinct national characteristics due largely to the diversity of instruments and playing techniques.

I've heard some attempts to play Romantic music with "authentic" forces that strike me as failures. Roger Norrington is a frequent culprit: his scrawny prelude to _Tristan,_ played with vibratoless strings at a tempo approaching a Viennese cafe waltz, may serve as an archetype of HIP gone awry. How Sir Roger could dream that he knew more about that music than Wilhelm Furtwangler is a mystery never to be fathomed.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> In solo keyboard music of the period, where timbre is not an issue, I see no point in historical purism; a piano can play Bach as clearly as a harpsichord, and more expressively because of its dynamic control, something Bach would certainly have realized when he expressed interest in early fortepianos.


While I'm someone who prefers Bach on the piano, I must disagree with the first half. Bach on the harpsichord has (at least in the hands of a good player) a clarity of counterpoint that's not possible on a piano with its longer sonic decay.  I find this particularly true in music that begs for ornamentation, like the Goldberg Variations when repeats are taken.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

Both.











Q.E.D.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> For Baroque and earlier, I usually prefer period instruments for the transparency and color they bring to ensembles. Vibratoless gut strings can sound wan and whiny, though, and can ruin some HIP performances for me. In solo keyboard music of the period, where timbre is not an issue, I see no point in historical purism; a piano can play Bach as clearly as a harpsichord, and more expressively because of its dynamic control, something Bach would certainly have realized when he expressed interest in early fortepianos. Baroque music is not typically wedded to specific timbres, and period practice was highly pragmatic: you played on the instruments that were available, and even rescored the music if necessary. Modern instrument performances are thus perfectly authentic.


The harpsichord is one of the most beautiful instruments of the world, with a huge, interesting, important and wonderful repertoire; a royal and celestial instrument whose predecessor was the psaltery of the angels.

I think that the tone of the harpsichord, a good harpsichord, is more complex and rich than a piano's, because of the resonances. And there are stops to alter timbre on a harpsichord.

And although it's true that the harpsichord's capacity for real dynamic variation is less flexible than a piano's, a good player can create the illusion of dynamic variation through agogic hesitations.

So I don't think that a harpsichord is less expressive than a piano, on the contrary, I think there's no instrument more soulful.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I've heard some attempts to play Romantic music with "authentic" forces that strike me as failures. Roger Norrington is a frequent culprit: his scrawny prelude to _Tristan,_ played with vibratoless strings at a tempo approaching a Viennese cafe waltz, may serve as an archetype of HIP gone awry. How Sir Roger could dream that he knew more about that music than Wilhelm Furtwangler is a mystery never to be fathomed.


I love this performance by Wojcicech Switala on an 1848 Pleyel, I think he uses the colours to do saome new things with the music, he plays the preludes as if they were a study in colours, like a Lachenmann quartet.






As far as vibrato's concerned, there's a lot to say about it. I do think it's important to establish the note clearly, but this may not mean losting all vibrato -- you could have it as an expressive compnant at the end of notes. It would be interesting to see exactly what Norrington's musicians are really doing, but I'd need to look at the sound waves and I haven't got the time.

(By the way I heard recently a note sung by Jussi Bjorling slowed down radically, but with no pitch alteration. You could hear the vibrato really clearly. His control of the vibrato was amazing!)


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> For Classical period music either period or modern instruments can be satisfying. I can't imagine composers of the time objecting to the slightly more homogenized sound of a modern orchestra, and certainly not to having more players available than they typically had. Mozart reportedly enjoyed hearing his music with a large string section. There are some works in which raucous natural horns and quacky oboes are delightfully colorful; I think mainly of Haydn's rusticity and humor, and even Brahms requested a natural (valveless) horn for the "hunting" effect it brought to his horn trio. Older instruments can also add a fiercer edge to Beethoven.


But what about Brahms, who prefered smaller orchestras and more conservative instrumentation? Should this be taken into account? Hearing Gardiner's Brahms' Second was quite a revelation, at least to me, whatever ayone else may think. Some passages finally made perfect sense which previously had sounded rather strange, even grotesque, and Brahms is not infrequently accused of being "muddy" and "turgid", in large part most likely due to modern orchestras, which Brahms probably woud have rejected. This of course not to say it's perfect or superior in all aspects to any modern instrument performance.



> The 19th century saw fairly rapid changes in instrumental technology, and some of these were important in allowing composers more flexibility in the demands they could make on players and the sheer sonorousness they could get from orchestras. My feeling is that most composers and players appreciated the changes, that composers didn't expect a specific timbre from the instruments they wrote for, and that adhering to the instruments supposedly used for works when they were composed is misplaced purism that misrepresents the evolutionary spirit and diversity of the time. As late as the mid-20th century, symphony orchestras had distinct national characteristics due largely to the diversity of instruments and playing techniques.


While composers may not have expected specific timbres neither could they have expected or predicted modern instruments, mordern standard concert pitch, constant vibrato or the slow tempos adopted later on, and certainly must have expected _something_, if only approximate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

wkasimer said:


> While I'm someone who prefers Bach on the piano, I must disagree with the first half. Bach on the harpsichord has (at least in the hands of a good player) a clarity of counterpoint that's not possible on a piano with its longer sonic decay. I find this particularly true in music that begs for ornamentation, like the Goldberg Variations when repeats are taken.


A piano played without pedal _has _no sonic decay! A good pianist has enormous control over this factor. The harpsichord has no sustain pedal at all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> The harpsichord is one of the most beautiful instruments of the world, with a huge, interesting, important and wonderful repertoire; a royal and celestial instrument whose predecessor was the psaltery of the angels.
> 
> I think that the tone of the harpsichord, a good harpsichord, is more complex and rich than a piano's, because of the resonances. And there are stops to alter timbre on a harpsichord.
> 
> ...


Clearly you adore the harpsichord! I agree that its timbral variations can be a useful effect, but a piano also has pedals which alter its timbre, and you do seem to underestimate a good pianist's ability to use varied articulation for that purpose. And agogic hesitations are hardly a substitute for real dynamic range and flexibility. I'd almost suspect you've never heard a good pianist play, much less played a piano yourself (I've played both instruments). Besides, agogic hesitations are possible on any instrument.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

I like both. 

For period instruments, I think it's interesting to hear the piece in a way that's closer to what the composer heard, and closer to the instruments for which he composed it. I also hear textures and parts in period instruments that I don't always hear in modern instruments.

Most of my listening is on modern instruments. The intonation problems of period instruments really starts to get to me after a while. And like the textures/parts I mentioned for period instruments, I will hear parts and textures on modern instruments that I don't hear in period instruments.

I do enjoy period string quartets/trios/duos/solos; by "period," I mean using gut strings. The Haydn quartet recordings by Quatuor Mosaiques are excellent in this regard. I don't prefer them over modern instruments, but having both period and modern instrument recordings are like both sides of the same coin.

-09


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Improbus said:


> But what about Brahms, who prefered smaller orchestras and more conservative instrumentation? Should this be taken into account? Hearing Gardiner's Brahms' Second was quite a revelation, at least to me, whatever ayone else may think. Some passages finally made perfect sense which previously had sounded rather strange, even grotesque, and Brahms is not infrequently accused of being "muddy" and "turgid", in large part most likely due to modern orchestras, which Brahms probably woud have rejected. This of course not to say it's perfect or superior in all aspects to any modern instrument performance.
> 
> While composers may not have expected specific timbres neither could they have expected or predicted modern instruments, mordern standard concert pitch, constant vibrato or the slow tempos adopted later on, and certainly must have expected _something_, if only approximate.


There are always quibbles and exceptions to be made. I merely generalized. We don't know what any composer in 1790 or 1850 would have thought of the typical modern orchestra. My point was that practices, technologies and sonorities were never static or universal, instruments were evolving all the time, and musicians in all eras might be presumed to have been somewhat flexible in their thinking and expectations. Why shouldn't we be?

What, in Brahms, ever sounded _grotesque_ to you? Me, I think Brahms sounds just fine whether it's Gardiner with his period band or Furtwangler with his Berlin Philharmonic, and I imagine Brahms would have been thrilled by the latter's apocalyptic intensity. Artists are not always closed-minded about the possiblities of their own work, and the creativity of the interpreter was certainly valued in the Romantic era.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> There are always quibbles and exceptions to be made. I merely generalized. We don't know what any composer in 1790 or 1850 would have thought of the typical modern orchestra. My point was that practices and sonorities were never "standardized," instruments were evolving all the time, and musicians in all eras might be presumed to have been somewhat flexible in their thinking and expectations. Why shouldn't we be?
> 
> What, in Brahms, ever sounded _grotesque_ to you? Me, I think Brahms sounds just fine whether it's Gardiner with his period band or Furtwangler with his Berlin Philharmonic, and I imagine Brahms would have been thrilled by the latter's apocalyptic intensity. Artists are not always closed-minded about the possiblities of their own work, and the creativity of the interpreter was certainly valued in the Romantic era.


Compare the passages following 3:45 and especially 39:29 with the corresponding ones with Gardiner and his ORR. Granted the difference might not be huge, but the effect is quite different, I think, and overall it sounds significantly darker and harsher than with the brighter and leaner sound of the period orchestra. Still performance-wise Solti and the CSO are doing an excellent job and I do like the recording.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Clearly you adore the harpsichord! I agree that its timbral variations can be a useful effect, but a piano also has pedals which alter its timbre, and you do seem to underestimate a good pianist's ability to use varied articulation for that purpose. And agogic hesitations are hardly a substitute for real dynamic range and flexibility. I'd almost suspect you've never heard a good pianist play, much less played a piano yourself (I've played both instruments). Besides, agogic hesitations are possible on any instrument.


There's no need to be so patronising! I'm disappointed in you because I thought you were someone who could engage in a discussion.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> While I'm someone who prefers Bach on the piano, I must disagree with the first half. Bach on the harpsichord has (at least in the hands of a good player) a clarity of counterpoint that's not possible on a piano with its longer sonic decay. I find this particularly true in music that begs for ornamentation, like the Goldberg Variations when repeats are taken.


I find that there is a crossover sonic problem. There are sections of Bach (in WTC, Goldberg and Italian Concerto) where repeated notes (on one key) are far easier to play on a piano mechanism. In Italian Concerto the 2nd movement's sostenuto bass works so much better on the piano. Playing repeated notes on harpsichord feels different and a bit slower as the mechanism plucks.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> There's no need to be so patronising! I'm disappointed in you because I thought you were someone who could engage in a discussion.


Yikes! Sorry. I didn't realize I was being patronising. I'm a pianist, so I suppose I was just just startled at your _seeming_ lack of awareness of what a pianist can do with his instrument.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Improbus said:


> Compare the passages following 3:45 and especially 39:29 with the corresponding ones with Gardiner and his ORR. Granted the difference might not be huge, but the effect is quite different, I think, and overall it sounds significantly darker and harsher than with the brighter and leaner sound of the period orchestra. Still performance-wise Solti and the CSO are doing an excellent job and I do like the recording.


There are slight differences in sonority. Do they alter the meaning of the music for you? They don't for me, even though I can enjoy the differences. There are equal if not greater differences to be heard between "modern" French, German and Russian orchestras of the 1950s. There's always been variety. I say _vive les differences!_


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Yikes! Sorry. I didn't realize I was being patronising. I'm a pianist, so I suppose I was just just startled at your _seeming_ lack of awareness of what a pianist can do with his instrument.


No harm done, I'm sorry if I over reacted.

I have to go out now, so please don't be offended by this short response.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> There are slight differences in sonority. Do they alter the meaning of the music for you? They don't for me, even though I can enjoy the differences. There are equal if not greater differences to be heard between "modern" French, German and Russian orchestras of the 1950s. There's always been variety. I say _vive les differences!_


I wouldn't say it alters the meaning exactly, but still I did find Gardiner's version enlightening and more "natural", even though I still prefer Solti's first and third of Brahms' symphonies.

As for Brahms sounding "grotesque" there is dark and bizarre quality to some things in his music that makes that impression but not necessarily in any sort of pejorative sense of the word. The same can be said of Beethoven and others.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I enjoy both Period and Modern instrument performers. It depends on the Musicians. I still find Klemperer Mozart invigorating and Joseph Klipsch Concertgebouw recordings to be filled with color despite modern instruments and leisurely tempos. Hogwood and Pinnock otoh reign supreme for me in Haydn. I generally prefer Period groups in Bach, Handel and Vivaldi but not when they sound sctatchy and squally and play at breakneck speeds


----------

