# Instruments only for their Period - The Purist Perspective



## michaels (Oct 3, 2014)

I've run across a point of view on TC today that I find curious and seemingly inconsistent:

Only instruments somehow identified as native to their "period" should be used for that period. 
Use of a period instrument by a post-period composer is foolish and absurd
A few questions I have for those who hold this perspective:

How does one define the boundaries of a period instrument?
What qualifies an instrument to cross period boundaries?
Why is it foolish and absurd to compose a piece with period instruments if they are used to produce the desired timbre and challenge to musicians?

I am seeking to understand something that I cannot put together in a cogent form, but I saw glimpses of possible understanding when "story" has been mentioned. But it lacked the fleshing out needed to actually grok the position.

I am _not_ seeking a "you just don't understand"... "it's so obvious" discussion.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

michaels said:


> [*]Use of a period instrument by a post-period composer is foolish and absurd


whoever said something like this is completely out of his mind.


----------



## michaels (Oct 3, 2014)

norman bates said:


> whoever said something like this is completely out of his mind.


How can you say that someone is actually insane because they hold this point of view without giving them the opportunity to explain it?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

michaels said:


> How can you say that someone is actually insane because they hold this point of view without giving them the opportunity to explain it?


Because an instrument is not an egg with an expiration date. It's a tool to produce a sound. "Hey, bricks are out of date, you can't use it to build something anymore".
Onestly I don't need to wait an explaination to know that whoever said that he's wrong.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

michaels said:


> How can you say that someone is actually insane because they hold this point of view without giving them the opportunity to explain it?




There is no sane explanation for that point of view.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

michaels said:


> How can you say that someone is actually insane because they hold this point of view without giving them the opportunity to explain it?


It is not insane, but I find it hidebound, wishing to keep the 'purity' of both sound and truly, a period that person is more than avid about, so as not to stain their (my opinion here) escapist and romanticized mentality about that period.

Instruments are instruments and they are utterly neutral as to what gets played on them. What gets played on them is, ideally, what is written for them with their capacities and timbrel qualities well-considered -- that criterion does not at all rule out a later contemporary piece written specifically for period instruments, or a mix of period and current model instruments.

Some purists (I think and hope it is but a very few) really want the instruments of a period exclusively reserved for use in playing only that period's repertoire. They must think that any other use of them in newly written music (especially, heaven forbid, in a more contemporary style than the original period) is somehow a corruption of the period music they are so fond of. -- which makes no real sense. I would say what they think a corruption is not one at all

To my way of thinking, all that is really corrupted is a sort of bubble of fantasy escapism, (glamorized) with attachments to the music of another time which a period fan has created for themselves.

The significant differences in the technological state of an instrument, what the most virtuosi of players can and can not technically play on it, and significant changes in its fundamental timbre are the general markers from one period to another, with those technological developments, once available, quickly and eagerly taken advantage of by the composers of the period when the new development came along.

Crossing the boundaries? I would guess when the technological developments were new, in transition, and both a newer oboe and the Baroque oboe may have been routinely what one might find from location to location. Still, the newer instrument(s) would have quickly become desired by players, and for composers 'the next thing to write for,' so I don't imagine those transitional periods were of any significant length.


----------



## Fagotterdammerung (Jan 15, 2015)

A lot of instruments go in and out of fashion based on timbral considerations and aesthetics rather than innate ability.

A perfect example: the trombone. Fully chromatic and technically capable since the late medieval period... but it's not until the 19th century that it's an orchestral regular? And more than that, the horn and trumpet, both with severe technical limitations at the time on their widespread introduction, were there before the trombone was? Clearly more than the technical abilities of instruments endears them to composers of their times. 

I'm all for writing for whatever you'd like to hear.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

The person who floated that idea on another thread has so far not provided the explanations you desire. And I doubt that anyone else here holds that same idea. So I think you're out of luck.

But what I really want to talk about is this idea of purity, but once again, PetrB is first with the best.

Oh well!!:tiphat:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ever since I first saw this thread I've been thinking 'Frank Martin'.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> Ever since I first saw this thread I've been thinking 'Frank Martin'.


That concertante work with Harpsichord, or some other using earlier period instruments?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

If you enjoy the sounds of period instruments and more importantly, the style of playing that goes with it when performed by a period instrument band, then that's your pick. I agree that period instruments do seem to have a purity of tone, pure tone as intended by that style of interpretation.


----------



## LudwigKaramazov (Mar 30, 2014)

What I find strange about the argument that caring about period instruments is some sort of "purist" mentality is that it seems easily recognizable that the pieces of music we look at by composers were written based on the demands and capabilities of their native instruments.

This carries over into music written for harpsichord as well. It is difficult to find a good recording of The Goldberg Variations on the actual harpsichord, which may be due to limited availability, but that seems bizarre, given how the piano and harpsichord are worlds apart in terms of their tone and overall sound. Would Bach have written his pieces the same if the piano were invented in his time? Probably not. He would recognize ways in which he could take advantage differently of the notes on a piano, and what would sound good on it, versus how it would sound on a harpsichord.

This could be extended to the argument about period instruments. Mozart and Haydn, etc did not write for a modern orchestra. And even if the notes are the same on the instruments, they may have made different decisions if they were aware of different tonal possibilities or shades of texture in the instruments available to them. Being interested in period instruments and seeing their relevance should, in most people, come from a natural desire to hear the compositions not only in the way in which they were written, but in the way in which they _needed_, perhaps, to be written, based on the "limitations" of the time. If we could bring back some of these composers now, they would perhaps alter their writing style to incorporate different instruments in different ways. Maybe they wouldn't even like some of the minute differences between instruments, and would decide against how much they would have originally decided to incorporate them when using their own period's instruments.

And modern is not always better. Instruments have arguably become more processed and "perfected" over time, and as a result, some of the warmth and naturalness has arguably seemed to in some cases be lost. It's not always about the perfection of a sound, and the subtle nuances of tone between modern and period instruments are enough to warrant a desire for the original instruments.

I have found that in some cases, the difference between a modern orchestral version of Mozart, for example, and a period performance is huge. I don't feel that I began to fully appreciate some of these works until I could really hear the blending of the instruments in period performances.


----------

