# period instruments, modern composers



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

My wife (not a classical music fan) raised an interesting point as we listened to Couperin over dinner and I told her about period instruments: Do any contemporary composers write music intended for old-fashioned instruments?

We both guess that someone must, but not being much of a scholar myself I can't name any. Can you?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Your wife is not a fan, but tolerates Couperin over dinner!? 

http://www.talkclassical.com/9051-modern-composers-writing-ancient.html


----------



## gr8gunz (Jan 19, 2011)

I went through a period instrument phase for a few years. Hogwood and Pinnock and the like. There are several modern composers who composed for the harpsichord mostly. I don't know of any who composed for a period orchestra.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

emiellucifuge - It's an ongoing struggle to find music we both enjoy. I've recently discovered that for some reason she tolerates the baroque on period instruments very well. I think part of it is the lack of dissonance and another might be the dynamic moderation.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Old-fashioned instruments.

Like violin, viola, cello, bass, flute, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, trumpet, horn, trombone, tuba, timpani, side drum, triangle?

Like piano, organ, accordion?

Well, then where to start? Many modern composers use all those old instruments quite a lot.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> My wife (not a classical music fan) raised an interesting point as we listened to Couperin over dinner and I told her about period instruments: Do any contemporary composers write music intended for old-fashioned instruments?
> 
> We both guess that someone must, but not being much of a scholar myself I can't name any. Can you?


Interesting. Sorry, I can't answer your original question regarding period instruments and modern works.

By the way, which Couperin? Louis or Francois, or some other in the Couperin dynasty? Just curious.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Francois! I don't think I've ever heard Louis, or any of the others.

I thought the Couperin situation is like the Bach situation, so that if you just say "Bach" everyone knows which one you mean, and if you mean one of the others you have to specify. Am I wrong about that?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

The Couperins were a family of musicians and composers (like many others, such as the Bachs). Most of the time, when one refers to Couperin, Francois is usually the one. Occasionally, it might be Louis.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ok. But the thing is, if someone writes "Bach" or "Schumann," people usually don't ask which one. I think it even works with "Strauss." Anyway, I thought that "Couperin" worked that way. 

While it seems like you'd have to specify "Scarlatti."


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Just to clarify, the term 'period instruments' simply means instruments that are/were up-to-date technology at the time a piece of music is/was written. Keeping this in mind, I'd say 99.99% of contemporary composers write music for period instruments. 

As for 'old fashioned instruments', some composers such as Brahms and Beethoven composed music with outmoded instruments specified or expected (valveless horns, wooden flutes, etc.). 

I remember once hearing that the viol consort 'Fretwork' play modern works on 16th/17th Century viols. Personally, I think that's a horrible way to treat a viol, but there it is.

Science, I assume when you say 'old fashioned instruments' you're referring to wooden & keyless flutes, gut strings, valveless horns, natural trumpets, etc.


----------



## Fagotterdammerung (Jan 15, 2015)

The harpsichord has seen quite a bit of new work written for it. Ligeti liked it, as have a number of others in the past fifty years.

Some instruments have had relatively brief periods of obscurity. The basset horn was common in the Classical era, faded out in the early Romantic period... but by the end of the Romantic era, composers were writing for it again, albeit in an updated form.

Some period instruments are so rare that, even if composers were interested, they might have a hard time finding for it ( the tangent piano is delightful... and I think there are about twelve in the world ). 

I would love to see the cornett used more. It's timbre is unique and quite compelling. Nothing ever truly replaced it in that sense... oboes, even saxophones are too reedy; clarinets too pale; trumpets too incisive, etc.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I thought of this recently for a composition project actually...I thought it would be cool to write a piece in a modern idiom for harpsichord, virginal, and viol consort.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

There is this:






Kagel: Music for Renaissance Instruments


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The Mauricio Kagel ^^^ is a fairly well-known 'watershed' piece with its aggressively contemporary vocabulary written for the antique period instruments.

There is Pavel Karmanov's very neo-baroque _Twice a Double Concerto_, for two ensembles, one contemporary instruments tuned to A440, the second a Baroque instrumental group, with the lower tuning. Very pleasant baroque-like with some more contemporary harmonic tensions within. The consequence of the two slightly different tunings adds some lustre and buzz as well.





I don't know specifically but there are period instrument groups (mainly baroque) who commission new works, many of which are quite baroque in spirit, with a sort of gentle contemporary twist. The tendency for a group of period instrumentalists to desire a very contemporary sounding piece is not usually great, and a composer must very well know the instruments' specific technical limitations (far greater than modern instruments) to write effectively for them.

I recently read a baroque ensemble had commissioned a work by John Tavener -- certainly expectations are of that 'new - old' vocabulary with which he has established himself.

There is a small flurry of numbers of contemporary pieces for ensembles of recorders, mainly from Europe, I think 

P.s. as far as those listed harpsichord concerti, the De Falla is pithy, lively and a bit angular, the Poulenc _Concert Champêtre_ is a delight, the big orchestra handled very well so the instrument shows well... the music is Poulenc all over, imo lovely and delightful, and it does evoke an outdoor (_Champêtre_) baroque / French claviciniste concert. I would recommend this recording:
_Concert Champêtre_; Aimée Van De Wiele (harpsichord),L'Orchestre de la Société des Concerts du Conservatoire, Georges Prêtre, conductor (EMI)


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I think this album will fit the bill quite wonderfully!










About baroque : *Neue Kompositionen für das Freiburger Barockorchester.* (Harmonia Mundi, HMC905187.88)



> 1-1 Flekkicht - Benjamin Schweitzer (17:14)
> 1-2 Bagatelle Trascendentali - Nadir Vassena (22:18)
> 1-3 Imprint - Michael Van Der Aa (14:09)
> 2-1 ...Und Folge Mir Nach - Juliane Klein (15:13)
> 2-2 Rubricare - Rebecca Saunders (17:37)


All five composers are AFAIK still alive!

Seems to be OOP at Harmonia Mundi's site, but available from the orchestras own web-shop! (don't know if they trade outside of EU)

/ptr


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

ptr said:


> I think this album will fit the bill quite wonderfully!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quite frankly, I think it's sad that an orchestra that originally existed to play Baroque music on period instruments has, apparently, become so bored with that repertoire, or is so hard-up for funding, that it starts playing modern music on Baroque instruments.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Quite frankly, I think it's sad that an orchestra that originally existed to play Baroque music on period instruments has, apparently, become so bored with that repertoire, or is so hard-up for funding, that it starts playing modern music on Baroque instruments.


What makes You think that they are bored? Are Your head so stuck in dark annals of tradition that You cant appreciate that a band challenges it self outside the grasp of their bulk repertoire? In my humble eye's Your statement represents everything that is wrong with "classical" music!

/ptr


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

ptr said:


> What makes You think that they are bored? Are Your head so stuck in dark annals of tradition that You cant appreciate that a band challenges it self outside the grasp of their bulk repertoire? In my humble eye's Your statement represents everything that is wrong with "classical" music!
> 
> /ptr


Firstly, ptr, why are you getting personal? I simply expressed a view, and you respond by criticising me. If I was to respond with a similar mindset to yours, I'd point out the myriad errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar in your post. Does that have anything to do with the subject of discussion? No. But it would be every bit as inappropriate as your inferring where my head is at, and what I am and aren't capable of appreciating.

Secondly, I used the word 'apparently' in my post. If you care to think about what I said, you'll see I see apparent boredom or financial pressure in the decision that orchestra has made: to play music that it wasn't formed to play, and music that is completely unsuited, in an 'authentic' sense, to Baroque instruments, and vice versa. If the orchestra wasn't bored with playing Baroque music (or if financial considerations weren't having an effect), surely it would continue with its exploration of the absolutely gigantic amount of baroque music that it hasn't yet had a chance to play/record. That's what's apparent to me.

Thirdly, I stand by my opinion: Baroque instruments are best reserved for Baroque music, just as electronic instruments are best reserved for late 20th Century and 21st Century music. Of course, you could argue that all instruments are fine for any era because that is somehow 'challenging'. If you're going to go down that route, though, you'll be supporting Metallica playing Handel's Water Music...

It's all a matter of taste, in the end, but I am expressing disapproval of an ensemble apparently selling-out, as well as (in my eyes) bastardising the instruments they play.

See how I kept that on topic, mate?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

emiellucifuge said:


> Your wife is not a fan, but tolerates Couperin over dinner!?
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/9051-modern-composers-writing-ancient.html


Don't go there. She may find Couperin preferable to talking with her husband


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

some guy said:


> Old-fashioned instruments.
> 
> Like violin, viola, cello, bass, flute, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, trumpet, horn, trombone, tuba, timpani, side drum, triangle?
> 
> ...


How about a Trio Sonata for Arpeggione, Glass Harmonica and Basset Clarinets? Is P.D.Q. Bach still active?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Firstly, ptr, why are you getting personal? I simply expressed a view, and you respond by criticising me. If I was to respond with a similar mindset to yours, I'd point out the myriad errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar in your post. Does that have anything to do with the subject of discussion? No. But it would be every bit as inappropriate as your inferring where my head is at, and what I am and aren't capable of appreciating.
> 
> Secondly, I used the word 'apparently' in my post. If you care to think about what I said, you'll see I see apparent boredom or financial pressure in the decision that orchestra has made: to play music that it wasn't formed to play, and music that is completely unsuited, in an 'authentic' sense, to Baroque instruments, and vice versa. If the orchestra wasn't bored with playing Baroque music (or if financial considerations weren't having an effect), surely it would continue with its exploration of the absolutely gigantic amount of baroque music that it hasn't yet had a chance to play/record. That's what's apparent to me.
> 
> ...


Thank You very much for this positive correction, I now understand that my poor spelling of English made my point of defending the orchestra's "one of" decision to do a project covering contemporary music. I pity them that they apparently do not have the foresight to avoid playing music out side of the expected box as much as I hope that the kind of conservatism that You display will implode on it self!

I still recommend it with full emphasis!

/ptr


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

ptr said:


> Thank You very much for this positive correction, I now understand that my poor spelling of English made my point of defending the orchestra's "one of" decision to do a project covering contemporary music. I pity them that they apparently do not have the foresight to avoid playing music out side of the expected box as much as I hope that the kind of conservatism that You display will implode on it self!
> 
> I still recommend it with full emphasis!
> 
> /ptr


It could be rationally argued that an intolerant attitude toward conservatism, manifests as identical to conservatism in all but that which is being protected; in this case, the ideology of liberalism. If liberalism were to become the norm, you would be a conservative.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

However, weren't the musics on that disc composed specifically for baroque ensemble? I only confirmed that Saunders's _rubricare_ is for "baroque string orchestra." What's wrong with a baroque orchestra playing a piece composed for baroque orchestra. It's not that they play "music that it wasn't formed to play."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Triplets said:


> Don't go there. She may find Couperin preferable to talking with her husband


I know I do!

(15 chars)


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

tortkis said:


> However, weren't the musics on that disc composed specifically for baroque ensemble? I only confirmed that Saunders's _rubricare_ is for "baroque string orchestra." What's wrong with a baroque orchestra playing a piece composed for baroque orchestra. It's not that they play "music that it wasn't formed to play."


Baroque music is music written between (roughly) 1600 and 1750. Music written today that is of a completely different style is not Baroque music. To specify that modern-sounding music be played on Baroque instruments is... silly; just as silly as playing Baroque music on electronic instruments.

You can argue with me if you like, and say I'm 'conservative', but I'll stick to my opinion just as you'll stick to yours.

Shakespeare set in 21st Century New York? A remake of Planet of the Apes with everyone speaking Elizabethan English? Bach's St. Matthew Passion played and sung by a death metal group? A 2015 Mercedes S Class with 1880s wooden seats? All possible, but, to my mind, perverse, pointless and silly.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

This piece of Mitterer's delights me - period instruments and live electronics:


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Baroque music is music written between (roughly) 1600 and 1750. Music written today that is of a completely different style is not Baroque music. To specify that modern-sounding music be played on Baroque instruments is... silly; just as silly as playing Baroque music on electronic instruments.
> 
> You can argue with me if you like, and say I'm 'conservative', but I'll stick to my opinion just as you'll stick to yours.
> 
> Shakespeare set in 21st Century New York? A remake of Planet of the Apes with everyone speaking Elizabethan English? Bach's St. Matthew Passion played and sung by a death metal group? A 2015 Mercedes S Class with 1880s wooden seats? All possible, but, to my mind, perverse, pointless and silly.


It's not so much that you're conservative, you're just missing the point. The unique sound of historical instruments is the timbre chosen by the composer for the work - see also Ligeti's Hamburg concerto. So the remake examples you propose are completely irrelevant


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Baroque music is music written between (roughly) 1600 and 1750. Music written today that is of a completely different style is not Baroque music. To specify that modern-sounding music be played on Baroque instruments is... silly; just as silly as playing Baroque music on electronic instruments.
> 
> You can argue with me if you like, and say I'm 'conservative', but I'll stick to my opinion just as you'll stick to yours.
> 
> Shakespeare set in 21st Century New York? A remake of Planet of the Apes with everyone speaking Elizabethan English? Bach's St. Matthew Passion played and sung by a death metal group? A 2015 Mercedes S Class with 1880s wooden seats? All possible, but, to my mind, perverse, pointless and silly.


My point was well said by dgee. Saunders composed the piece with the specific sound of baroque string orchestra in mind. Are you saying that such an act is silly? Then how about a contemporary composer composing a music for piano? An instrument does not specify the style of music. It is a different argument whether playing a music composed for specific instruments using different instruments is "silly," though I don't think it's silly.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

dgee said:


> It's not so much that you're conservative, you're just missing the point. The unique sound of historical instruments is the timbre chosen by the composer for the work - see also Ligeti's Hamburg concerto. So the remake examples you propose are completely irrelevant


That's a fair point. I do understand what the point is, but my examples were not appropriate.

Here's an appropriate example: a stage play about life in 21st Century Las Vegas spoken in the unique language of Elizabethan English. Silly.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

tortkis said:


> My point was well said by dgee. Saunders composed the piece with the specific sound of baroque string orchestra in mind. Are you saying that such an act is silly? Then how about a contemporary composer composing a music for piano? An instrument does not specify the style of music. It is a different argument whether playing a music composed for specific instruments using different instruments is "silly," though I don't think it's silly.


If a contemporary composer writes music for a modern 21st Century piano, that's not silly.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> That's a fair point. I do understand what the point is, but my examples were not appropriate.
> 
> Here's an appropriate example: a stage play about life in 21st Century Las Vegas spoken in the unique language of Elizabethan English. Silly.


Silly, perhaps, but I'd see it--nice to see something out of the ordinary, for a change.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Silly, perhaps, but I'd see it--nice to see something out of the ordinary, for a change.


... which precisely speaks to my point about boredom being a reason for a Baroque ensemble to play modern music.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2015)

The point is, "the" piano is not a 21st century instrument.

And violins are even older.

Bassoons? Ridiculous for Stravinsky to have used such an ancient instrument for his modern in 1913 _Le sacre,_ even though it's a ballet about ancient Russia.

I see the Shakespearian English play about Las Vegas as just as inappropriate as the others.

Better to stick with musical instruments. There are no parallels between the language of a certain era and the instruments of a certain era. Between the language of a certain era and the musical style of a certain era, may be.... But still. How about some explaining. So far all we've gotten is assertions. _Why_ do you think that Baroque instruments should only be used to play Baroque music? Explanations are so much more interesting than bare assertions, don't you think?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Here's an appropriate example: a stage play about life in 21st Century Las Vegas spoken in the unique language of Elizabethan English. Silly.


Literature and speech is really the last place you'd want to reach for to make parallels about absolute music.

You can not go to some accented _speech_ from long ago and somehow connect that to instruments from long ago, which still exist or are accurately reproduced, The instruments have very specific and unique timbres and idiosyncratic characteristics. When they were new, or now, they are merely a sound palette, with some real limitations as to what notes and configurations even a virtuoso player can manage, and not merely some relatively educated guess of a manner of speaking centuries ago.

Maybe it is better thought of as making a new mosaic using a trove of loose antique mosaic tiles. Anything written from this approach will be only as good as the piece is via the composer writing it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yeah. I love the harpsichord-Bach or contemporary. The latter usually has a nice "gothic" sound.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Maja Ratkje - River Mouth Echoes (2001) for Viola da gamba quartet




This is very good.

Garth Knox's D'Amore contains some 20th/21st century works for viola d'amore. A beautiful album.








http://www.garthknox.org/discography.htm
_"Repertoire includes music by Tobias Hume and Marin Marais from the 17th century, by Attilio Ariosti from the 18th century, by Klaus Huber and Roland Moser from the 20th, and by Knox himself from the 21st. Garth also offers arrangements of folk music from Celtic sources that connect to his own Irish/Scottish heritage."_


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

John Cage 4' 33" uses the oldest instrument known to mankind--- ambient noise . Cavemen enjoyed that one.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

If cavemen enjoyed ambient noise so much, why did they invent music?


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

science said:


> My wife (not a classical music fan) raised an interesting point as we listened to Couperin over dinner and I told her about period instruments: Do any contemporary composers write music intended for old-fashioned instruments?
> 
> We both guess that someone must, but not being much of a scholar myself I can't name any. Can you?


Two spring to mind :
a) 



b) 




And here is a link to an early music ensemble who run a yearly competition (Ingélou and Taggart have posted about this before) with precisely that aim: http://www.norwichbaroque.co.uk/section712632.html


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> The point is, "the" piano is not a 21st century instrument.
> 
> And violins are even older.
> 
> ...


The parallel between language and musical instruments is a very powerful one: both language and musical instruments can be used to sound the same messages, the same sentiments, the same stories. The difference comes when the listener HEARS those messages, sentiments, stories.

You're missing my point entirely.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> Why do you think that Baroque instruments should only be used to play Baroque music? Explanations are so much more interesting than bare assertions, don't you think?


Because they are Baroque instruments.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Because they are Baroque instruments.


I think your comments are making a very powerful point that you don't understand music very well


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> If cavemen enjoyed ambient noise so much, why did they invent music?


How do You know they didn't? We have archaeological evidence in the form of bone flutes fx, the fact that the caveman recording technologies was very organic in state and due to the rapid degradation of organic technologies they decomposed as fast as Beethoven did, only mulch remains of either... 

/ptr


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Literature and speech is really the last place you'd want to reach for to make parallels about absolute music.


No it's not; it's entirely appropriate.



> You can not go to some accented speech from long ago and somehow connect that to instruments from long ago, which still exist or are accurately reproduced


Yes I can.



> The instruments have very specific and unique timbres and idiosyncratic characteristics. When they were new, or now, they are merely a sound palette, with some real limitations as to what notes and configurations even a virtuoso player can manage, and not merely some relatively educated guess of a manner of speaking centuries ago.
> 
> Maybe it is better thought of as making a new mosaic using a trove of loose antique mosaic tiles. Anything written from this approach will be only as good as the piece is via the composer writing it.


I think it is absolutely hilarious that you and others are trying to 'debate' (if that's what you're trying to do) with me about a very simple point: every single piece of music that was written before the current era was written for instruments that were in existence at the time of the piece being written. The composer had the sound of contemporary instruments in mind. To say that instruments that have very different volume, colour, texture, tone, etc. are superior or, at the very least, equivalent for the purpose of playing said pieces is, frankly, absurd.

I feel a bit like an atheist amid a throng of Bible bashers; they're all making assertions about something they have no evidence for, yet I'm the one being asked to provoide evidence for my lack of belief.

Fact: every composer of a bygone era wrote with 'period instruments' in mind. 'Modern instruments' are not what those composers knew anything about. Every note and phrase and inflection and intended expression was sufficiently and accurately expressed by the instruments of the composer's day, which is why he wrote the notes and scores the way he did.

Just as Elizabethan English and modern English can express the same message, so period and modern instruments can express the same notes. The difference comes in the way in which those messages/notes were meant to sound by the inventor.

This is a very simple concept.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

dgee said:


> I think your comments are making a very powerful point that you don't understand music very well


I think that comment makes a very powerful point that you see a need to judge me rather than stick to the subject.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I think that comment makes a very powerful point that you see a need to judge me rather than stick to the subject.


Did you consider listening to any of the music on offer here and think about whether it makes use of any feature of period instruments to sound that is different from how modern instruments sound? Try it

As to suggesting members of FBO are bored of Baroque and that's a shame - well I've heard them live and met a few of them. That's just a boast btw (although completely true). And musicians like a varied career. So they play classical (shock, horror) and contemporary (oh no!) and probably do other gigs as well

Strangely enough I know a bunch of musician who play lots of early music and contemporary! Sometimes the extent to which production of music and the taste and interests of actual musicians differs from listeners expectation is big and jarring - but take it in and learn something! Musicians often don't share their public's taste and objectives for the music world


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

***I challenge everyone contributing to this thread to stick to commenting on the subject at hand, rather than making accusations or judgements concerning me or anyone else contributing to this thread.

I have the confidence in my intellect, as well as the necessary maturity, to adhere to the above standard.

Regards to all.***


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

dgee said:


> Did you consider listening to any of the music on offer here and think about whether it makes use of any feature of period instruments to sound that is different from how modern instruments sound?


Yes I did. The period instruments do sound very different to modern instruments, don't they?



> Strangely enough I know a bunch of musician who play lots of early music and contemporary!


So do I. Such a pity.



> Sometimes the extent to which production of music and the taste and interests of actual musicians differs from listeners expectation is big and jarring - but take it in and learn something!


I've seen it all before, and learned something that leads to my current views.



> Musicians often don't share their public's taste and objectives for the music world


I don't take what one group of musicians thinks as necessarily being correct. Other musicians have the opposite view. Others, different in degrees.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

You've missed a boat somewhere chief. Good luck to you an your listening!


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

dgee said:


> You've missed a boat somewhere chief. Good luck to you an your listening!


I see you're still on the old 'target the man' train.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I see you're still on the old 'target the man' train.


I like period instruments as much as you (maybe a little less dogmatically) but if you want to make rules about how composers can't compose for certain instruments or the FBO can only play certain music...

Then you're you have bad ideas! However wonderful of a person you might be


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Raefus, you have offered very little in the way of support for your ideas, which many of us have found peculiar and risible.

Given how little we have to go on, you'll have to forgive us for working with what we have.

Basically, we're asking you to supply us with the information we need to come to the same conclusions that you have come to. What we have seen so for simply does not support that. That is, an assertion is not supported by another assertion and especially not by typography.

And, just by the way, lumping us all together and referring to us as being like Bible thumpers* means that you cannot take the high ground on the personal remarks issue.

*Yeah, I know, you said "bashers," but the context makes it clear that you meant "thumpers." Bible bashers would be a sub-category of atheist, not a contrary category.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

It always comes as a bit of a shock to me when I hear a harpsichord in a baroque-period ensemble: that instrument always sounds like something from the space age to me.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

dgee said:


> I like period instruments as much as you (maybe a little less dogmatically) but if you want to make rules about how composers can't compose for certain instruments or the FBO can only play certain music...
> 
> Then you're you have bad ideas! However wonderful of a person you might be


I have bad ideas? Really? It's all about me, with you, isn't it?

For your information, I'm not setting rules. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you're setting rules for Baroque ensembles being allowed to play modern music.

What I am doing is intelligently, maturely and rationally explaining why I consider Baroque instruments are best suited to playing Baroque music, and why they are the best medium to use when playing music of the Baroque.

It's funny that, when I express those views, some people see it as a legitimate exercise to criticise me personally. Hilarious, in fact.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

That has no relation to my post


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> Raefus, you have offered very little in the way of support for your ideas, which many of us have found peculiar and risible.


When you say 'many', are you referring to the handful of people who have disagreed with me so far?



> Given how little we have to go on, you'll have to forgive us for working with what we have.


No, I'll hope you can remain impersonal at least.



> Basically, we're asking you to supply us with the information we need to come to the same conclusions that you have come to. What we have seen so for simply does not support that. That is, an assertion is not supported by another assertion and especially not by typography.


I've made it very clear why I think what I do. I could do what you're doing and keep posting that you aren't making yourself clear, but I won't be doing that; you may if you wish.



> And, just by the way, lumping us all together and referring to us as being like Bible thumpers* means that you cannot take the high ground on the personal remarks issue.


That's a fair comment. I was referring to your collective approach, rather than your intelligence, understanding of the subject of music, etc., however.



> *Yeah, I know, you said "bashers," but the context makes it clear that you meant "thumpers." Bible bashers would be a sub-category of atheist, not a contrary category.


Bible basher:
_noun_ 
_Someone who tries in a forceful or enthusiastic way to persuade other people to believe in the Christian religion and the Bible_ 
- Cambridge Dictionary.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

I think this is your central point, Raefus:



Raefus Authenticus said:


> I remember once hearing that the viol consort 'Fretwork' play modern works on 16th/17th Century viols. Personally, I think that's a horrible way to treat a viol, but there it is.


Fair enough, that's how you feel. I, on the other hand, see no harm, and as I posted before, there is a baroque ensemble based in Norwich (UK) who commission new works for them via an annual competition. Thank you for sharing your opinion with us, personally I feel we need take it no further.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> I think this is your central point, Raefus:
> 
> Fair enough, that's how you feel. I, on the other hand, see no harm, and as I posted before, there is a baroque ensemble based in Norwich (UK) who commission new works for them via an annual competition. Thank you for sharing your opinion with us, personally I feel we need take it no further.


Thank you for your mature and reasonable post, TalkingHead.

Insofar as my view on which instruments to play which era's music with is concerned, I'll quote from my own earlier post (#44) here:



> ...every single piece of music that was written before the current era was written for instruments that were in existence at the time of the piece being written. The composer had the sound of contemporary instruments in mind. To say that instruments that have very different volume, colour, texture, tone, etc. are superior or, at the very least, equivalent for the purpose of playing said pieces is, frankly, absurd.
> 
> ...every composer of a bygone era wrote with 'period instruments' in mind. 'Modern instruments' are not what those composers knew anything about. Every note and phrase and inflection and intended expression was sufficiently and accurately expressed by the instruments of the composer's day, which is why he wrote the notes and scores the way he did.


As for modern music on old instruments, it comes down to questions like: Is it okay to play J.S.Bach on electric guitars? How about on tin pots? An ensemble of triangles? Didgeridoos? Etc. In other words, how far is it okay to go with playing music of any era on instruments of any other era (earlier or later)? I say: stick to instruments of the era the music was written in, instruments the music was written for, *AND* instruments that were made to play music of the era they were made in.

Am I a purist? Yes.

If you disagree, then I hope you enjoy the stuff I hate. That's your right.

Cheers.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Bible basher:
> _noun_
> _Someone who tries in a forceful or enthusiastic way to persuade other people to believe in the Christian religion and the Bible_
> - Cambridge Dictionary.


Interesting. I did not know that. Seems counterintuitive, but language is a funny thing, to be sure.

Bible basher it is, then.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> As for modern music on old instruments, it comes down to questions like: Is it okay to play J.S.Bach on electric guitars?


How so? That's an example of old music on modern instruments. That's a different situation entirely. And that's something that has been troublesome. You make an assertion about modern music on old instruments (which includes pianos and violins and flutes and clarinets), which you then illustrate with an observation about old music on modern instruments. But the validity of playing old music on modern instruments has nothing to contribute to a discussion of playing new music on old instruments.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> I say: stick to instruments of the era the music was written in, instruments the music was written for, AND instruments that were made to play music of the era they were made in.


So no modern music on violins (from the 1500s)? That means no Baroque music on violins, either, then. Or Classical. Or Romantic. Who would be willing to dispatch with four centuries of music because their composers used 16th century instruments?



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Am I a purist? Yes.


Are you opening the whole personal remarks thing back up again? If so, I would say that these strictures are the strictures of a Puritan, not a purist.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> If you disagree, then I hope you enjoy the stuff I hate. That's your right.


If it all comes down to us being free to enjoy whatever we enjoy--which we were free to do long before you started posting to this thread--then what was the purpose of your posts?



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Cheers


No argument, there. I enjoy drinking.

And while Ben Franklin probably never said that beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, G.K. Chesterton did have this advice about drinking: "Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world."

Amen to that.

:cheers:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> It's funny that, when I express those views, some people see it as a legitimate exercise to criticise me personally. Hilarious, in fact.


Yet you did not simply express your views on instrumentation alone in this thread as you claim - you suggested a certain group of musicians must have been bored or only making a recording for financial gain because they made the choice to record newer music on older instruments. Do you not think it is quite possible that claim could be interpreted as a personal criticism?


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

tdc said:


> @some guy I agree with most of your points, but Raefus Authenticus did not actually start this thread.


Fixed. Thanks tdc!:tiphat:


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> How so? That's an example of old music on modern instruments. That's a different situation entirely. And that's something that has been troublesome. You make an assertion about modern music on old instruments (which includes pianos and violins and flutes and clarinets), which you then illustrate with an observation about old music on modern instruments. But the validity of playing old music on modern instruments has nothing to contribute to a discussion of playing new music on old instruments.


Here's the entirety of what I wrote (note the words in bold): "As for modern music on old instruments, it comes down to questions like: Is it okay to play J.S.Bach on electric guitars? How about on tin pots? An ensemble of triangles? Didgeridoos? Etc. *In other words, how far is it okay to go with playing music of any era on instruments of any other era (earlier or later)?* I say: stick to instruments of the era the music was written in, instruments the music was written for, AND instruments that were made to play music of the era they were made in."

Did you really miss that, some guy?



> So no modern music on violins (from the 1500s)? That means no Baroque music on violins, either, then. Or Classical. Or Romantic. Who would be willing to dispatch with four centuries of music because their composers used 16th century instruments?


What are you talking about? What I'm saying is so simple! I'm distinguishing between instruments of different eras. You might think (if you indeed do) that it's fine to play Richard Clayderman stuff on an Anton Walter fortepiano; I don't.



> Are you opening the whole personal remarks thing back up again? If so, I would say that these strictures are the strictures of a Puritan, not a purist.


Wrong. I'm a purist.



> If it all comes down to us being free to enjoy whatever we enjoy--which we were free to do long before you started posting to this thread--then what was the purpose of your posts?


Interesting statement/question/attempt to score a point.

Firstly, I'll answer your question: the reason for my posts have been to reply to people such as yourself, and to express my views.

Now some questions for you: do you naturally assume that, when someone has a view not aligned with your own, they must believe you are not entitled to your view? If so, why? If not, why are you questioning my assertion that someone is free to hold their own view?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

tdc said:


> Yet you did not simply express your views on instrumentation alone in this thread as you claim - you suggested a certain group of musicians must have been bored or only making a recording for financial gain because they made the choice to record newer music on older instruments. Do you not think it is quite possible that claim could be interpreted as a personal criticism?


I think it is possible, tdc. Almost anything is theoretically possible. It would be woefully incorrect, however.

If I were to say you were doing something for money or that you were bored, that would be an observation of mine (whether accurate or otherwise); it wouldn't be a criticism. You're clutching at straws if you're trying to make me culpable of the kind of personal attack that others on this thread have been guilty of.

I once again stand by my original statements:

Freiburg Baroque are bored with Baroque music and/or in need of an injection of funds if they want to record modern music.

Baroque music (or that of any bygone era) is best played on instruments that the composer wrote the music for (which can never be modern instruments).

Modern music played on instruments of a bygone era is a horrible use of those instruments.

Those are my opinions.

I have not slandered anyone in making those statements.

If you or anyone else on this forum thinks they can intellectualise or bully me out of stating the above, you've got another thing coming.

Have a read over this thread and note that, when people I've been discussing all of this with get frustrated, they accuse me of 'missing a boat' or 'not understanding music'.

I have not accused any of you of being stupid, ignorant or anything defamatory at all.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Raefus Authenticus, the entire disagreement rests upon the fact that you think that to play contemporary music on antiquated instruments is an aberration, while everyone else here thinks it is not a problem. This discussion will never progress anywhere, because all you have to go on is assertions and circular reasoning.

If playing music on the instruments it was written for is the only (or at least the preferable) way to play it, what do you think of the discussions that the Toccata and Fugue in D minor was perhaps originally written for the violin and arranged for organ by someone other than Bach (somewhat inexpertly)?

How about playing Baroque music on instruments that predate Baroque music?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Raefus Authenticus, the entire disagreement rests upon the fact that you think that to play contemporary music on antiquated instruments is an aberration, while everyone else here thinks it is not a problem.


I disagree. I think the entire disagreement is currently being waged because the handful of people who are contributing to this thread, and disagreeing with me, can't express their opposing views without resorting to personal attack. If there had been nothing more than everyone lending their views, this thread wouldn't have taken the turn it did. My suggestion to you, Mr Moderator, is to subjectively judge the manner of everyone on this forum, not just 'new comers' or those that hold views not consistent with the average.



> This discussion will never progress anywhere, because all you have to go on is assertions and circular reasoning.


That is absolute rubbish, Moderator. I completely reject you saying I am the reason this discussion hasn't 'progressed'. If you have blinkers on, please remove them for the sake of this thread. There has been practically nothing of substance from anyone who disagrees with me, insofar as reasons for their love of playing any music on any instrument is concerned. I've been more than accommodating when asked for explanation of my reasoning.



> If playing music on the instruments it was written for is the only (or at least the preferable) way to play it, what do you think of the discussions that the Toccata and Fugue in D minor was perhaps originally written for the violin and arranged for organ by someone other than Bach (somewhat inexpertly)?


I'm a collector of Bach music (recorded and scores) for the last 25 years. The answer is: if it can be proved that the toccata and fugue in D minor is for solo violin, then that's how it should be played.



> How about playing Baroque music on instruments that predate Baroque music?


Play Baroque music on the instruments the composer wrote the music to be played on. If that composer was Saint Colombe, then he expected a viol that was of Early Baroque architecture.

If you think trying to box me into a corner with which-composer-wrote-for-earlier-instruments? is worth pursuing, you're missing my point entirely.

I hate the idea of Mendelssohn's Saint Paul oratorio being played and sung by a heavy metal group. I also hate (for exactly the same reasons) that same work being played by an early music ensemble on sackbuts and cornets.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

It's not a view I hold, but it's an intriguing one.

May I ask, is your objection purely philosophical, or is there a significant aural component too?
For my own part, I found when I first became interested in classical that I had difficulty warming to Baroque music. I eventually discovered that there were such things as period instruments, and when I heard recordings it made a huge difference to my appreciation. Similarly when I came across the idea of historically informed performance of Beethoven symphonies, this made sense to me. For a time I flirted with being dogmatic about such things but I soon realised that, for example, I prefer (in general) the sound of a piano to that of a harpsichord, though there are times when I do want to hear the harpsichord, and certainly harpsichord is necessary if I want an "authentic" experience. So my philosophical preferences get trumped by aural ones.

With the other situation, being against "old" instruments being used by today's composers, I can again appreciate the logic to your position, and certainly one tends not to encounter shawms and vihuelas in the chamber music of the 19th century. Leaving aside the aspect of whether it sounds okay, though, I'd have thought that there are enough old instruments floating about now thanks to the early-music movement that they could be regarded as valid (though still unusual) options for today's composers, in much the same way as "exotic" percussion instruments from other cultures can be employed.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I hate the idea of Mendelssohn's Saint Paul oratorio being played and sung by a heavy metal group.


How likely is it that this would ever happen?

Plenty of actual things to hate, aren't there?

Otherwise:



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Freiburg Baroque are bored with Baroque music and/or in need of an injection of funds if they want to record modern music.


_Why_ have you concluded this? (Why do you reject the conclusion that they like modern music?)



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Baroque music (or that of any bygone era) is best played on instruments that the composer wrote the music for (which can never be modern instruments).


_Why_ have you concluded this?



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Modern music played on instruments of a bygone era is a horrible use of those instruments.


_Why_ have you concluded this?



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Those are my opinions.


Yes, we know. What is your support for these opinions?

Here's how it works, Raefus. If someone makes an assertion, any assertion, about anything, those being addressed will want to know how that someone reached their conclusion. What is the train of evidence that led them to making that assertion. Repeating the assertions is not at all the same thing as showing what led to them.

The only people who will feel no need for your reasoning are those who hold similar opinions. Everyone else is going to want some evidence. This is not persecution; this is a perfectly rational desire on the part of those who do not already agree with you. That is, if you're interesting in persuading, then you have to do something besides assert. And even though you have said that you have been explaining, you have not. You have only asserted.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> How likely is it that this would ever happen?


Not very.



> Plenty of actual things to hate, aren't there?


Yes.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> It's not a view I hold, but it's an intriguing one.
> 
> May I ask, is your objection purely philosophical, or is there a significant aural component too?
> For my own part, I found when I first became interested in classical that I had difficulty warming to Baroque music. I eventually discovered that there were such things as period instruments, and when I heard recordings it made a huge difference to my appreciation. Similarly when I came across the idea of historically informed performance of Beethoven symphonies, this made sense to me. For a time I flirted with being dogmatic about such things but I soon realised that, for example, I prefer (in general) the sound of a piano to that of a harpsichord, though there are times when I do want to hear the harpsichord, and certainly harpsichord is necessary if I want an "authentic" experience. So my philosophical preferences get trumped by aural ones.
> ...


Hello, Nereffid.

I love your question: "is your objection purely philosophical, or is there a significant aural component too?" That's so intelligent! And, to be frank, that's what my interest in this discussion is really all about.

I suppose my objection is mostly an intellectual one. Although I must say that I do prefer the sound of gut strings and wooden flutes any day!

You say you prefer the sound of a piano (in general) to a harpsichord. So do I. Last night, I spent hours watching YouTube videos of Vladimir Horowitz playing Schubert and others on modern pianos; the sound and music was wonderful. I even love the sound of J.S.Bach played on piano; not just Gould, but also later musicians playing his wondrous fugues on wondrous Steinways.

However, I can never get away from the truth, which is that Bach never intended his works to be played on Steinways. Also, if I am to get as close as possible to the message that any composer was expressing, I have to hear their music played on the right instruments in the right way.

As to whether or not old instruments should be utilised for modern music, my opinion is again a philosophical one: an instrument made by people with 16th Century minds is not suited to expressing music of 21st Century minds. However, again your intelligent question comes to the fore. Is there an element of aural preference here? Well, I prefer the sound of old instruments to those of digital design.

Viols sound good full stop. But do viols sound good to me when playing something Avant Guard? Maybe they flatter the music!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> an instrument made by people with 16th Century minds is not suited to expressing music of 21st Century minds.


according to wikipedia, the clavichord was invented in the fourteenth century. It means that Bach was clearly using an instrument completely outdated.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> I think it is possible, tdc. Almost anything is theoretically possible. It would be woefully incorrect, however.
> 
> If I were to say you were doing something for money or that you were bored, that would be an observation of mine (whether accurate or otherwise); it wouldn't be a criticism. You're clutching at straws if you're trying to make me culpable of the kind of personal attack that others on this thread have been guilty of.
> 
> ...


I think you may well have slandered Freiburger Barockorchester


Raefus Authenticus said:


> It's all a matter of taste, in the end, but I am expressing disapproval of an ensemble apparently selling-out, as well as (in my eyes) bastardising the instruments they play.


Expressions such as "selling-out" and "bastardising" are definitely criticism (rather than observation). Yes even with the qualifying "apparently".

You place great primacy on the opinions of dead composers (somehow known absolutely to you) over those of contemporary artists, music directors, conductors and, yes, audiences over performances of their work. In many cases you may well be correct however I think it not impossible that some would be excited and delighted to hear their work on modern instruments. Obviously we can never know for sure.
However you will not grant that privilege to living composers who choose to write works for baroque instruments. These you describe not as "bored" but "silly".
I refer to your first post in this thread:


Raefus Authenticus said:


> Just to clarify, the term 'period instruments' simply means instruments that are/were up-to-date technology at the time a piece of music is/was written. Keeping this in mind, I'd say 99.99% of contemporary composers write music for period instruments.
> 
> As for 'old fashioned instruments', some composers such as Brahms and Beethoven composed music with outmoded instruments specified or expected (valveless horns, wooden flutes, etc.).


Were Brahms and Beethoven being "silly" as well?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

After reading all these postings, I'd like to share a couple of thoughts:

"Boring" isn't so bad and can sometimes be highly beneficial. Freiburg Baroque (FB) has been performing baroque music for 20 years or more. If the group is temporarily bored with all that, I don't have any problem as it sounds perfectly human and reasonable to me. There's no "selling out" going on here. The FB members were not born with a sign on their chests saying "If you play old instruments, you must play old music". 

I don't think it's reasonable to judge music before you hear it a few times with full concentration. FB has decided to venture beyond its usual regimen; let's listen and then make comments about the works, the performances and the instrumentation used.

If I was a current composer, I would have an entire world of instrumentation available including instruments that are not generally considered musical instruments. Then along come some folks who think I SHOULD delete from that entire world instruments from previous eras. First, I don't like anyone telling me what I should do as a composer; I'll do what feels right to me. Second, I can't understand why anyone would want to limit the options of the composer. So, I compose the work I want to compose and simply request of classical music enthusiasts that they listen first and respond later.

The notion of intellectual or philosophical objections to what FB has done rings no bells with me (I'm a down to earth kind of guy except for exploration of the Universe and human cloning). I'll listen to their recording and either enjoy it or not.

A question for Raefus Autenticus: Have you listened to the FB recording? Did you like it?


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

norman bates said:


> according to wikipedia, the clavichord was invented in the fourteenth century. It means that Bach was clearly using an instrument completely outdated.


Oh my goodness! Are you serious?

The Clavichord was still in use during Bach's time; its inventors had similar musical ideas to those of the Baroque (not identical); a clavichord during Bach's day was a current instrument.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> I think you may well have slandered Freiburger Barockorchester


Nonsense.



> Expressions such as "selling-out" and "bastardising" are definitely criticism (rather than observation). Yes even with the qualifying "apparently".


Wrong; they're observations.



> You place great primacy on the opinions of dead composers (somehow known absolutely to you) over those of contemporary artists, music directors, conductors and, yes, audiences over performances of their work. In many cases you may well be correct however I think it not impossible that some would be excited and delighted to hear their work on modern instruments. Obviously we can never know for sure.
> However you will not grant that privilege to living composers who choose to write works for baroque instruments. These you describe not as "bored" but "silly".


If you are unable to see the silliness in what I'm pointing out, that's your mind doing what it does.



> Were Brahms and Beethoven being "silly" as well?


No. They wrote music with current instruments in mind. When Brahms specified instruments that had been superceded by technology, he wasn't digging-up ancient instruments that had long since stopped being used at all.


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> After reading all these postings, I'd like to share a couple of thoughts:
> 
> "Boring" isn't so bad and can sometimes be highly beneficial. Freiburg Baroque (FB) has been performing baroque music for 20 years or more. If the group is temporarily bored with all that, I don't have any problem as it sounds perfectly human and reasonable to me. There's no "selling out" going on here. The FB members were not born with a sign on their chests saying "If you play old instruments, you must play old music".
> 
> ...


Hi, Bulldog.

Firstly, I think (for what it's worth) that you are entitled to your opinions. I also am entitled to mine.

Yes, I have heard the Freiburg recording. A friend of mine loves avant guard music, and anything that 'rocks the boat'. Aside from the fact that I detest the sound of the music, I stand by my assertion that a 'Baroque Orchestra' should play music of the Baroque, and not of the 21st Century.

I agree that boredom is a normal thing for humans to experience. However I wouldn't be impressed to hear that a Christian church got bored with preaching from the Bible, then turned to the Quran for a refreshing break.

FBO was formed to play Baroque music on original instruments; I think it's a shame they don't stick to doing just that.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Oh my goodness! Are you serious?
> 
> The Clavichord was still in use during Bach's time; its inventors had similar musical ideas to those of the Baroque (not identical); a clavichord during Bach's day was a current instrument.


It's still in use in fact. I can mention a lot of modern composers making great music for it. Or is there an expiration date for a tool?
And how do you decide that the use of an instrument isn't valid anymore? Is there a definite date?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> It's still in use in fact. I can mention a lot of modern composers making great music for it.


I'd appreciate any particular recommendations you may have.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> I'd appreciate any particular recommendations you may have.


Alec Wilder - all the octets
Maurice Ohana - Chiffres de clavecin/Sacral D'ilx (but he did other interesting things for the instrument)
De Falla - Harpsichord concerto
Ligeti - Continuum
Poulenc - Concert champêtre

I particularly love the octets of Wilder, some of my favorite music ever. Extremely accessible pieces influenced by jazz but at the same time original, full of inventions and "deep".


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Thanks for those, norman bates. I know the last three on your list and think they're all masterpieces, so I can't wait to hear the others.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Nonsense.


Well. I'm convinced!!



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Wrong; they're observations.


No, "selling out" and "bastardizing" are not observations. An observation goes something like this: The Freiburg Baroque Orchestra has recorded an album of 20th century music. You see the difference? An observation observes. Period. Commentary and conclusions are something different. Those two things certainly should be based on observation, but they are not the observation themselves.

Interestingly enough, the Freiburger Barockorchester also has an album of Mozart opera arias.

Something no one has mentioned yet, the city. Freiburg. It's possibly important that Freiburg is an important center for new music. A Köln or Berlin or Darmstadt kind of place. Living in a place like that, it's probably to be expected that music groups will want to play contemporary music. It's a possibilty, anyway.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> If you are unable to see the silliness in what I'm pointing out, that's your mind doing what it does.


So personal remarks are OK, again? Or just when you do them. If the former, then here's something for you to consider: If you are unable to see the silliness in what we've been pointing out, that's your mind doing what it does.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> Hi, Bulldog.
> 
> Firstly, I think (for what it's worth) that you are entitled to your opinions. I also am entitled to mine.


From the wiki article: "I'm entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is a common declaration in rhetoric or debate that can be made at some point in an argument. When asserted for this reason, the statement exemplifies an informal logical fallacy of the type red herring. Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. To assert the existence of the right is a failure to assert any justification for the opinion."

And here's a lovely little essay by Jamie Whyte: https://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/index.htm?id=1468712



Raefus Authenticus said:


> I stand by my assertion that a 'Baroque Orchestra' should play music of the Baroque, and not of the 21st Century.


We'd all be better off if you'd stop standing there and actually give your assertion some support. Prop it up a bit. Get it off the ground.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> I wouldn't be impressed to hear that a Christian church got bored with preaching from the Bible, then turned to the Quran for a refreshing break.


Well, dunno about that there bored part, but I think that this refreshing break would be just that, refreshing.



Raefus Authenticus said:


> FBO was formed to play Baroque music on original instruments; I think it's a shame they don't stick to doing just that.


Well, that's how it started, but it quickly developed into a group that played music from all eras. That's not something that just happened yesterday; that's something that has been an integral part of the FBO almost from its inception. None of them seem to think it's a shame. And there is exactly zero evidence for your conclusion that they simply got bored. If they're bored, they've been bored since 1987 (or even '85). That's a long time to be bored. And boredom seems a strange thing to have so energized so many people, audiences and composers and performers alike.

*Refreshing the world of music out of our boredom for almost thirty years.*


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

norman bates said:


> And how do you decide that the use of an instrument isn't valid anymore? Is there a definite date?


It's more of a "Sell by" or "Best if used by" date, you know, like for milk and meat products, man.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> It's more of a "Sell by" or "Best if used by" date, you know, like for milk and meat products, man.


and how do you decide that a sound isn't good anymore? Considering the harpsichord, I could imagine that the lack of dynamics was less attractive for a romantic composer, but in modern music it was appreciated again for its timbre. Do you have a reason to say that a composer that likes that particular timbre should not use it anymore?


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Well Norman, I think the sound quality is inversely proportional to the effective cures for diseases around the time of instrument's inception. _Ergo_, when the harpsichord was in massive use in the past, many would in the course of their miserable existence succumb to diseases that today would be cured by a couple of pills or an injection of penicillin. Thus, the beautiful sound of the harpsichord provided a sonic backdrop to human suffering in that era. Today, we have cured almost all of those early ailments and plagues and so on, and to use the harpsichord to play modern music today might tear a gap in the time-continuum thingy and let all the bugs back in.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

norman bates said:


> and how do you decide that a sound isn't good anymore? Considering the harpsichord, I could imagine that the lack of dynamics was less attractive for a romantic composer, but in modern music it was appreciated again for its timbre. Do you have a reason to say that a composer that likes that particular timbre should not use it anymore?


Haha, I'm sorry, my post was completely in jest. I apologize, it's often difficult to tell through text. My thoughts on Rafeus' opinions are... well, I choose not to say! I think it's a lost cause. Plenty of others have already sufficiently responded to his posts.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

TalkingHead said:


> Well Norman, I think the sound quality is inversely proportional to the effective cures for diseases around the time of instrument's inception. _Ergo_, when the harpsichord was in massive use in the past, many would in the course of their miserable existence succumb to diseases that today would be cured by a couple of pills or an injection of penicillin. Thus, the beautiful sound of the harpsichord provided a sonic backdrop to human suffering in that era. Today, we have cured almost all of those early ailments and plagues and so on, and to use the harpsichord to play modern music today might tear a gap in the time-continuum thingy and let all the bugs back in.


So we've been wrong to blame this measles outbreak on anti-vaxxers - it's been period instrument revivalists all along!


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

What I learned from this thread:

If a composer writes a piece for baroque orchestra, 

1) The baroque orchestra is not allowed to play it because that would be silly for a baroque orchestra to play music written for a baroque orchestra.
2) The modern orchestra is not allowed to play it because that would be silly for the piece to be played by forces other than those for which it was written

Conclusion: These pieces and perhaps their composers should be locked up for a long, long time, so as not to offend any Instrumental-Expiration-Date Purists. You wouldn't drink milk from the baroque era, would you?!


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Hey, drinking milk from the Baroque era IN the Baroque era would be dangerous enough, eh?

It's kinda funny that this tempest should be taking place in this particular teapot. The word Baroque did not start to be used to describe this era until 1910. So a "Baroque" purist should also be very particular about calling this music "Baroque."

Fair's fair.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> Hi, Bulldog.
> 
> Firstly, I think (for what it's worth) that you are entitled to your opinions. I also am entitled to mine.
> 
> Yes, I have heard the Freiburg recording. A friend of mine loves avant guard music, and anything that 'rocks the boat'. Aside from the fact that I detest the sound of the music, I stand by my assertion that a 'Baroque Orchestra' should play music of the Baroque, and not of the 21st Century.


There's an easy solution to this issue. Just take "Baroque" out of the group's title.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> There's an easy solution to this issue. Just take "Baroque" out of the group's title.:tiphat:


Or simply make it more accurate to reflect that it is an ensemble of "baroque instruments" (Ambiguous still, I know). Rather than a group that is only allowed to read certain scores or face the retribution of simple-minded "purists". (In quotations for lack of a much better word)


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

[obligatory >=15 characters]









science said:


> Ok. But the thing is, if someone writes "Bach" or "Schumann," people usually don't ask which one. I think it even works with "Strauss." Anyway, I thought that "Couperin" worked that way.
> 
> While it seems like you'd have to specify "Scarlatti."


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

^ Bad Luck Brian is a favorite of mine. He gets in far more trouble than that, even!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

nathanb said:


> Conclusion: These pieces and perhaps their composers should be locked up for a long, long time, so as not to offend any Instrumental-Expiration-Date Purists. *You wouldn't drink milk from the baroque era, would you?!*


*If you could, it would be more like sinking your teeth into rock-hard cheese* ;-)


----------



## Raefus Authenticus (May 5, 2013)

norman bates said:


> It's still in use in fact. I can mention a lot of modern composers making great music for it. Or is there an expiration date for a tool?
> And how do you decide that the use of an instrument isn't valid anymore? Is there a definite date?


It's been resurrected for the use of bored avant garde composers, yes.

**"Oh no! What a terrible thing to say!..."


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

Now there's an interesting defense of saying a terrible thing: call it a terrible thing, yourself, putting it in quotes so that it's preemptive mockery of a very likely reaction to the terrible thing one has said.

Just by the way. I know several dozen "avant-garde" composers, from very famous to very obscure. None of them are bored in the least. None of the compositional choices they make are made out of boredom.

So tell us, who are these bored ones? I've been immersed in this world for over forty years, and I've never met one of those. I've met a few bored listeners, sure. Composers? Nope. I'd be interested to know who you have in mind.

[Disclaimer: yes, I know you have no one in particular in mind. That is actually my point.]


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Raefus Authenticus said:


> It's been resurrected for the use of bored avant garde composers, yes.
> 
> **"Oh no! What a terrible thing to say!..."


I don't know why it should be terrible, bored or not if the quality of the work is great who cares?
Anyway this is one of the harsh avantgarde pieces I've mentioned, just try to listen a few seconds of it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I don't know why it should be terrible, bored or not if the quality of the work is great who cares?
> Anyway this is one of the harsh avantgarde pieces I've mentioned, just try to listen a few seconds of it.


That piece must be so harsh that even YouTube won't offer it anymore.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

PetrB said:


> The brain-locked literalism (or plain old ornery stubbornness)


Literalism is the death of civilization.

 :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Giordano said:


> Literalism is the death of civilization.
> 
> :tiphat:


a-Yep. Literalism = the death of _imagination, creativity,_ and is at least the primary death-knell prior a life in hell on earth before 'the end.'


----------

