Our Summer BAL No 76 Mozart Piano Concerto No 23 K488

[Richard Barrett]

this is where I have an issue with HIP; there were as many differing interpretations and performing practices and 'takes' in Mozart's day

Although none of them involved Steinways, that is for sure.

Huge amounts of research work have gone into discovering as much as possible about performing techniques and instruments in Mozart's day, and before and after; this sector of the academic world has exploded in the last half century. One of the terms which has dropped out of its vocabulary is "authentic", being replaced by the term (used by yourself!) "historically informed performance". And there are indeed many ways of being historically informed, which is why HIP has actually brought about a broadening of performance possibilities rather than forcing them all down the same orthodox path, which is what you seem to be claiming. I remember in particular the "shock" of Reinhard Goebel's notes to his recordings of Bach's Suites BWV 1066-69 where he said (I paraphrase) now wait a minute, we know that French overtures were "double-dotted" in France, but we have no idea whether they were in Germany at the same time, so let's try these pieces without. This move on Goebel's part had numerous consequences in the way that baroque music was interpreted from then on. The point is that "HIP" is what it says it is, not a chase after an illusory goal of "authenticity".

[jayne lee wilson]

Authenticity? What does it mean, here? Surely an anomalous abstract concept..... this is where I have an issue with HIP; there were as many differing interpretations and performing practices and 'takes' in Mozart's day, as there are today. Hence my question; What is 'authentic?'

Take a listen to Mozart or Haydn Symphonies from Hogwood and Bruggen to Harnoncourt; on to Thomas Fey or Giovanni Antonini (who uses two different and distinct orchestras himself in the 2032 series).... these all sound very different from each other, in fact more differentiated than various modern orchestral renderings would usually sound.

As Richard says, the term "authentic" has tended to fall away; it was a bit abstracted and vague, gesturing toward the idea of an attempt to find "something like" the sound Haydn or Mozart etc may have heard. OK as far as it goes, I guess, and in performance-practice there were always going to be different takes on it, so inevitably it became a multifaceted creative force in itself. Take Goebel's Two Brandenburg Sets, recorded 30 years apart....

Mind you, Rameau played on a modern orchestra, however pleasant, sounds pretty "inauthentic" to me.......or at least inappropriate. Bit of a dog-on-hind-legs.....

[french frank]

Although none of them involved Steinways, that is for sure.

Some comments (at the end) which also reflect on the way the instruments might have been played:

[DoctorT]

While you have been discussing performance styles, I've been listening to Kovacevich/Davis/LSO

[visualnickmos]

Although none of them involved Steinways, that is for sure.

Huge amounts of research work have gone into discovering as much as possible about performing techniques and instruments in Mozart's day, and before and after; this sector of the academic world has exploded in the last half century. One of the terms which has dropped out of its vocabulary is "authentic", being replaced by the term (used by yourself!) (i)"historically informed performance". And there are indeed many ways of being historically informed, which is why HIP has actually brought about a broadening of performance possibilities rather than forcing them all down the same orthodox path, which is what you seem to be (ii)claiming. I remember in particular the "shock" of Reinhard Goebel's notes to his recordings of Bach's Suites BWV 1066-69 where he said (I paraphrase) now wait a minute, (iii)we know that French overtures were "double-dotted" in France, but we have no idea whether they were in Germany at the same time, so let's try these pieces without. This move on Goebel's part had numerous consequences in the way that baroque music was interpreted from then on. The point is that "HIP" is what it says it is, not a chase after an illusory goal of "authenticity".

(i) Of course I use the term myself! What other term is there, for this particular divergence of interest ?

(ii) Possibly implying more accurately than 'claiming'

(iii) I can't see the point; why would anyone care?

So, if I'm correct in my warped logic, HIP's purpose is to guess (albeit 'educated) at any number of ways the works might have been performed?

Nothing against the practice, but my question is quite simply 'why?'

Thank God you got the right 'Goebels' on the case!

[Joseph K]

So, if I'm correct in my warped logic, HIP's purpose is to guess (albeit 'educated) at any number of ways the works might have been performed?

Nothing against the practice, but my question is quite simply 'why?'

That's already been answered? So we know as much as possible how the composer intended their music to sound. I mean why perform this music at all?

[french frank]

(So, if I'm correct in my warped logic, HIP's purpose is to guess (albeit 'educated) at any number of ways the works might have been performed?

Some aspects may be conjectures, others are certainties: Mozart symphonies were not performed by large 'symphony orchestras', his piano works were not performed on concert grands, gut strings were used on string instruments &c.

Anyone is allowed to prefer the works to be performed by a modern orchestra, on a concert grand, just as anyone is allowed to prefer the "HIPP" versions.

[Bryn]

(i) Of course I use the term myself! What other term is there, for this particular divergence of interest ?

(ii) Possibly implying more accurately than 'claiming'

(iii) I can't see the point; why would anyone care?

So, if I'm correct in my warped logic, HIP's purpose is to guess (albeit 'educated) at any number of ways the works might have been performed?

Nothing against the practice, but my question is quite simply 'why?'

Thank God you got the right 'Goebels' on the case!

[Sir Velo]

(iii) I can't see the point; why would anyone care?

Point being not to assume that because a performance practice is documented as being established in one country that it is necessarily followed elsewhere. This frees up the interpreter, no?

So, if I'm correct in my warped logic, HIP's purpose is to guess (albeit 'educated) at any number of ways the works might have been performed?

Possibly more accurate to assert that the purpose being that performance is informed by scholarship rather than the whim (guesswork) of the performer. Within that scholarship there is the opportunity for a variety of interpretations.

Nothing against the practice, but my question is quite simply 'why?'

To get closer to the thing itself. For me the music sounds fresher, more spontaneous, more "authentic" in HIP approaches.

[Petrushka]

Anyone is allowed to prefer the works to be performed by a modern orchestra, on a concert grand, just as anyone is allowed to prefer the "HIPP" versions.

Indeed so. I can't understand why people, on both sides of the argument, are so intolerant of the other and so entrenched in their attitudes with each believing they are right and the other is wrong. There is plenty of room for both approaches and enough to keep everyone happy. I personally don't go for HIPP very much, a bit sometimes but not much, and I certainly wouldn't be in the business of shouting down anyone's choice either way. Is it naive to expect others to take a similar 'live and let live' approach?

[jayne lee wilson]

But are they entrenched now, really? Its some years since JEG, Harnoncourt, Bruggen and so on began conducting modern symphony orchestras, often with startlingly and very exciting results. Pinnock, Haïm, Antonini and others have conducted a (very) reduced-Berlin Phil in recent years in concerts of Mozart, Beethoven, and - yes, even Rameau (Emmanuelle Haïm with her own choice of excerpts - I loved it).
Rattle likewise with the OAE. There’s been much cross-fertilisation.

Despite wrong assumptions, magazines like Gramophone never had any remotely doctrinaire postion: just a wide spread of interests, tastes and thoughts among their writers on performance styles, as many a Collection survey shows.

In my Proms comments and elsewhere, I always try to be very specific about what a classical performance brings to the music, whatever the instrumental provenance; how other approaches might have gains and losses. After following the above conductors on record for so long, I couldn’t listen any other way.
In fact, those so-called HIPPs-specialists have encouraged a wonderful creative diversication, not a narrowing at all, renewing and enlivening the performance of classical works generally and certainly inspiring later artists.

[Richard Barrett]

I can't understand why people, on both sides of the argument, are so intolerant of the other and so entrenched in their attitudes with each believing they are right and the other is wrong.

There are no rights and wrongs about how music might be performed, of course. The entrenched attitude that I find problematic is the idea that because I like this music performed this way, that's surely the way the composer would have wanted it to be performed. HIP is not about what I prefer, or what the composer "would have" preferred, it's about using what we know about what the composer did as a starting point.

Why would anyone care? What a strange thing to ask. Why would anyone care about anything?

[LMcD]

There are no rights and wrongs about how music might be performed, of course. The entrenched attitude that I find problematic is the idea that because I like this music performed this way, that's surely the way the composer would have wanted it to be performed. HIP is not about what I prefer, or what the composer "would have" preferred, it's about using what we know about what the composer did as a starting point.

Why would anyone care? What a strange thing to ask. Why would anyone care about anything?

Anybody care to answer this challenging question?

[visualnickmos]

Some aspects may be conjectures, others are certainties: Mozart symphonies were not performed by large 'symphony orchestras', his piano works were not performed on concert grands, gut strings were used on string instruments &c.

Anyone is allowed to prefer the works to be performed by a modern orchestra, on a concert grand, just as anyone is allowed to prefer the "HIPP" versions.

Absolutely. I agree. All I'm saying is that the notion doesn't light my 'listening' candle.

[visualnickmos]

Indeed so. I can't understand why people, on both sides of the argument, are so intolerant of the other and so entrenched in their attitudes with each believing they are right and the other is wrong. There is plenty of room for both approaches and enough to keep everyone happy. I personally don't go for HIPP very much, a bit sometimes but not much, and I certainly wouldn't be in the business of shouting down anyone's choice either way. Is it naive to expect others to take a similar 'live and let live' approach?

I don't think there is any intolerance exhibited in this particular avenue of debate, from any 'side.' Certainly no "shouting down anyone's choice either way."
It's refreshing that people involved have simply put their views strongly and with conviction.