BaL 1.05.21 - Haydn: Symphony no. 92 "Oxford"

[Richard Barrett]

Isn't it distinctly paradoxical that as we inevitably get further and further and further away from the time of Haydn, Bach or whoever, we persuade ourselves that we know more and more about how their performances went?

We don't "persuade ourselves" - as at no previous period in history, "we" immerse ourselves in primary and secondary sources, iconography and so on, and test the results of all that research in practical solutions which themselves have been evolving over the past half century as skills on the instruments and in the historical styles have improved. So no it isn't paradoxical at all - we also know a great deal more about the causes of the First World War, or the Neolithic civilisations of Anatolia, or the physiology of dinosaurs, than we knew 50 years ago.

Nobody is saying that 19th century performing traditions are "wrong", but, not coincidentally, they involved what might be called a "colonial" attitude to the "other country" of the past with the assumption that the rudimentary old instruments (for example) needed to be improved upon, in distinction to the HIPP approach which assumes that performing styles, instruments and interpretative techniques of earlier times were perfectly suited to the contemporary music they existed alongside.

And the idea that HIPP is concerned with "recreating" what actually happened is really a greatly oversimplified view and should be put to rest once and for all; it's a matter (as I said earlier) of using what's known about original performing circumstances as a starting point from which to create contemporary performances.

[Alison]

My conclusion from this BaL is that nobody seems to be capable of conducting Haydn symphonies properly.

You either get staid, unstylish, exaggerated or touched up.

For me the field is wide open for someone who can capture what should be the uncomplicated joyous naturalness of these scores

Berglund the best of a bad bunch.

I’d argue the string quartets are much better catered for.

[richardfinegold]

... mmmnyerss - but do you really want Böhm's Haydn?

.

[richardfinegold]

I can't speak for the 'Oxford' (which I haven't heard in full) but I bought the set of the 'London' symphonies with Fey and, pace Jayne whom I know to admire them, Dr T's, "somewhat hard driven and lacking in charm", applies equally to them, IMUO. After a time, it all becomes a bit wearing. Having turned to Sigiswald Kuijken's set with relief (one of the joys of the CD catalogue) to remind myself of Haydn's wit, as well as his constant inventiveness, the Fey set got relegated to the shoebox in the eaves, brought out again when I thought that I might not have given them a fair hearing (especially given the misfortune which Fey has suffered) but then put away again when I thought it unlikely that I would ever want to listen to them again.

Agree. Fey wears you down after a few listens. I do enjoy Kujiken and Hogwood in Haydn, and Trevor Pinnock’s Sturm und Drang set is perhaps my favorite Haydn collection

[richardfinegold]

I like LMP point that the 19th Century musicians were proximally closer to 18th Century music and traditions than ourselves, but agree with RB that successive generations may dilute that tradition with patronizing attitudes over generations. What I dislike about HIPP is the “research “ or academic attitude. The terminology frequently used is redolent of a Benchlab and not a Concert Hall, and then there is the “we’ve done the work, so only our viewpoint matters” attitude that can be off putting. That is great for Science, perhaps not so applicable to Art? Ultimately, no one really knows what18th or 19th Century performance really sounded like. Surely both approaches have their merits, but the competing dogmas can be tiresome

[Richard Barrett]

I like LMP point that the 19th Century musicians were proximally closer to 18th Century music and traditions than ourselves

But as I said they also had no interest in how things might have been done in their past, so no interest in preserving it. As an example you have Mozart's versions of Handel's oratorios, with added instruments and harmonies not available to Handel, which are of great interest in themselves of course but indicative of why Handel's own practice had to be rediscovered in the 20th century. It's not dogma, it's respect for the sources. Can you point us at an example of pseudo-scientific vocabulary used by a HIPP practitioner? Some of the claims made back in the 1960s were a bit extreme maybe, but things have moved on a lot since then.

[Ein Heldenleben]

But as I said they also had no interest in how things might have been done in their past, so no interest in preserving it. As an example you have Mozart's versions of Handel's oratorios, with added instruments and harmonies not available to Handel, which are of great interest in themselves of course but indicative of why Handel's own practice had to be rediscovered in the 20th century. It's not dogma, it's respect for the sources. Can you point us at an example of pseudo-scientific vocabulary used by a HIPP practitioner? Some of the claims made back in the 1960s were a bit extreme maybe, but things have moved on a lot since then.

Didn’t Brahms put a lot of work showing respect for the sources into producing trustworthy editions of earlier composers like Couperin ? Even though he may have played them on (then) modern piano. Without stretching the point doesn’t Beethoven’s study of Palestrina and Handel indicate that he may have had a great deal of interest in how things were done in the past ?

[Richard Barrett]

Didn’t Brahms put a lot of work showing respect for the sources into producing trustworthy editions of earlier composers like Couperin ? Even though he may have played them on (then) modern piano. Without stretching the point doesn’t Beethoven’s study of Palestrina and Handel indicate that he may have had a great deal of interest in how things were done in the past ?

My understanding is that, while Brahms was certainly enthusiastic about Couperin's music, it seems to have had an influence on his own late piano music, and he was happy to have his prestigious name attached to Chrysander's editions, he didn't play much of a role in the actual editing. Aside from that though, while composers like Brahms and Beethoven (and Mozart, as I mentioned above) took an interest in learning from the compositional techniques of their predecessors, this didn't take the form of any concern with how that music might have been performed at the time when it was written. To take another even later example, Mahler's Suite of arrangements from several Bach suites mixed together and variously elaborated is a prime example of how, when older music was actually performed in those times, there was a general feeling that it needed the benefits of the "improvements" made in the size and constitution of orchestras in the meantime.

[LHC]

My understanding is that, while Brahms was certainly enthusiastic about Couperin's music, it seems to have had an influence on his own late piano music, and he was happy to have his prestigious name attached to Chrysander's editions, he didn't play much of a role in the actual editing. Aside from that though, while composers like Brahms and Beethoven (and Mozart, as I mentioned above) took an interest in learning from the compositional techniques of their predecessors, this didn't take the form of any concern with how that music might have been performed at the time when it was written. To take another even later example, Mahler's Suite of arrangements from several Bach suites mixed together and variously elaborated is a prime example of how, when older music was actually performed in those times, there was a general feeling that it needed the benefits of the "improvements" made in the size and constitution of orchestras in the meantime.

To look at it another way, isn't also true to say that the idea that we should be concerned with "how music might have been performed at the time when it was written" is a relatively modern one (ie latter half of the twentieth century), and that prior to this the primary concern of musicians and composers would be how to perform a piece of music with the forces available to them. So just as Mozart would expect to adapt and update his own pieces to make them suitable for performance in different environments and with the forces available, he would have taken a similar view to music of the past.

For example, when Don Giovanni was first performed in Prague, the arias were written for the particular set of performers available at the Estates Opera House, but when it then moved to Vienna, some of the arias were replaced and new pieces were added to suit the conditions and performers available there.

I think it is fine that our attitudes towards the performance of the music of different periods has changed and evolved and is now more sensitive to different performance styles, and to how the sounds and technical capabilities of the instruments of the time is reflected in how the music of that time was composed and performed. But by the same token, I don't think we can project our current expectations and preoccupations onto the musicians of the18th and 19th centuries, and condemn them for not meeting our current expectations for performance practice.

[LeMartinPecheur]

But as I said they also had no interest in how things might have been done in their past, so no interest in preserving it.

But surely having no deliberate interest in preserving it (out of some early notion of HIPP) doesn't mean they didn't preserve it unconsciously, out of sheer habit and the way they'd been taught by the preceding generation, one reaching back a little bit nearer to source. Which was pretty much the point of my original posting.

"Wiping the slate clean" and expunging anything in pre-HIPP practice could be throwing out some nice clean babies along with no doubt much dirty bath-water. We can of course only judge by results, but should perhaps be more careful not to damn a performance simply because stylistically it shows links to the good old, bad old days.

A case in point. Much Bruckner performance and criticism these days seem to insist on constant tempi except where the score indicates a change. Therefore school of Furtwangler with a much more fluid approach seems a thing of the past. Yet I believe it was JLW a while ago who quoted a Bruckner letter in which he said the work (or works?) needed lots of tempo changes that weren't marked in the score. So in principle Furtwangler was right, even if he could only have said to Norrington if challenged, "But we've always done it this way."

[Richard Barrett]

To look at it another way, isn't also true to say that the idea that we should be concerned with "how music might have been performed at the time when it was written" is a relatively modern one (ie latter half of the twentieth century)

Exactly! That's one of the points I've been trying to make, not very clearly it seems.

[richardfinegold]

But as I said they also had no interest in how things might have been done in their past, so no interest in preserving it. As an example you have Mozart's versions of Handel's oratorios, with added instruments and harmonies not available to Handel, which are of great interest in themselves of course but indicative of why Handel's own practice had to be rediscovered in the 20th century. It's not dogma, it's respect for the sources. Can you point us at an example of pseudo-scientific vocabulary used by a HIPP practitioner? Some of the claims made back in the 1960s were a bit extreme maybe, but things have moved on a lot since then.

And I also went on to say that 19th Century Musicians and their successors also developed a patronizing attitude over time to earlier music and thus got farther away from original intentions. Can I cite chapter and verse writings of HIPP practitioners that are pseudo-scientific? I’ve certainly heard them. I particularly remember hearing Norrington in a radio interview about the Symphonies Fantastique being pretty dismissive of all other recordings because they didn’t feature some now extinct brass instrument that his recording employed . I remember a lot of conjecture about Bach and the correct forces needed for his cantatas. Payment data for musicians involved was extrapolated to infer the number of players and singers, and the jargon used reminded me of Zoologists that make inferences about what extinct animals must have looked like based on ancient DNA samples. With Science, there can be only one answer. With Bach, he know that he adapted his Art to whatever forces and Instruments were available. Art is not Science, thank goodness

[Richard Barrett]

Payment data for musicians involved was extrapolated to infer the number of players and singers

What exactly is wrong with that as a research procedure, do you think?

With Bach, he know that he adapted his Art to whatever forces and Instruments were available.

Precisely. So as a starting point for performance of his music, it would seem appropriate to learn as much as possible about those things, right? Since clearly they were a crucial influence on how he conceived and as you say "adapted his Art".

[Goon525]

Just in case anyone’s still interested in Haydn 92, I’ve listened to both ‘winners’. I like Jacobs very much - don’t even find the minuet OTT - but I do dislike the second-half repeats in both outer movements - which I think RW said weren’t even in the score. I just think they drag the music beyond its natural length, though I admit this may be a very personal bête-noire. I’d be interested to know whether others agree, though. Berglund - a rather left field choice - is really rather good in a fairly conservative modern chamber orchestra style. I wished only for divided violins and hard timpani sticks. Both of these were via Qobuz, but as I also own the old VPO/Böhm, I dipped into that. You might be expecting it to be too slow, but not really, just a good old fashioned full orchestra performance, too big a band for my current tastes, and the DG recording is not particularly attractive. So I can see why it didn’t get included.

Anyone listening to Tom Service’s programme immediately after Record Review might have heard Sir Simon Rattle say that if he could be left with only one composer, it would be Haydn. He’s a fine Haydn conductor, but his version got short shrift on Saturday.

[Richard Barrett]

Regarding repeats, I have no interest in Haydn performances that don't do them.