Old and new instruments

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There's much ongoing discussion about the use of the instruments specified by the composer. It will surprise many that I am an enthusiast of this. For example, I would not substitute recorders with flutes in Bach, or use a piano in St Matthew Passion, as VW did. Nor would I use an electric piano in Puccini (as Opera North did). However, I would always use a modern piano rather than a copy of Cristofori's gravicembalo col piano e forte. Furthermore, rather than using a baroque treble recorder, I would select a Mollenhauer Modern Alto (though not the Elody electric version) in view of its firmer sound on the lowest notes, and the availablity of a greater range of notes.

I know many would see this as a fudge, but I would maintain that instruments have improved over time, and that experience gained in this area should be passed back to the music.

[MrGongGong]

I know many would see this as a fudge, but I would maintain that instruments have improved over time, and that experience gained in this area should be passed back to the music.

Surely all depends on what you mean by "improved"
(we have been here before)
If one compares the modern flute to the Shakuhachi for example

[vinteuil]

I would maintain that instruments have improved over time...

... whereas I wd maintain that instruments have changed over time. They are different; they sound different. That does not mean 'better' : often it means 'inappropriate for the music composed with the original instrument in mind'.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I suggest it varies according to the instrument itself. A baroque flute has all the musical and expressive qualities needed, but perhaps early pianos are the Tiger Moths of the keyboard.

[Hornspieler]

There's much ongoing discussion about the use of the instruments specified by the composer. It will surprise many that I am an enthusiast of this. For example, I would not substitute recorders with flutes in Bach, or use a piano in St Matthew Passion, as VW did. Nor would I use an electric piano in Puccini (as Opera North did). However, I would always use a modern piano rather than a copy of Cristofori's gravicembalo col piano e forte. Furthermore, rather than using a baroque treble recorder, I would select a Mollenhauer Modern Alto (though not the Elody electric version) in view of its firmer sound on the lowest notes, and the availablity of a greater range of notes.

I know many would see this as a fudge, but I would maintain that instruments have improved over time, and that experience gained in this area should be passed back to the music.

Well you can't have it both ways, E A. Either you use the only instruments that were available at the time or you use the modern improved versions.

You are quite right. Instruments have improved over time. Would you enter the Bisley Rifle Competition with a 17th century flintlock, or compete in the Monte Carlo Rally with a Model T Ford?

I have nothing against HIPP concerts and quite enjoy them if they are authentic and genuine.

HS

BTW Many of our brave RAF fighter pilots learnt to fly in Tiger Moths. Don't knock them.

[Hornspieler]

... whereas I wd maintain that instruments have changed over time. They are different; they sound different. That does not mean 'better' : often it means 'inappropriate for the music composed with the original instrument in mind'.

Well said, sir.

HS

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It isn't an exact science. Adding valves to horns was probably an "improvement". But the Vienna Philharmonic regards the later double horn as a retrograde step in terms of the actual tone of the instrument.

[MrGongGong]

It isn't an exact science. Adding valves to horns was probably an "improvement".

When I was in Switzerland in August I had an Alphorn lesson from this guy

http://www.alexandrejous.com/

wonderful musician

I wonder if adding valves to the alphorn is

probably an "improvement".

I suspect not

It's the word "Improvement" that is problematic IMV

[David-G]

I suggest it varies according to the instrument itself. A baroque flute has all the musical and expressive qualities needed, but perhaps early pianos are the Tiger Moths of the keyboard.

How "early" does a piano have to be to be a Tiger Moth? At the "Chopin Forum" at the Purcell Room a few years ago, there was a period piano (probably an 1840s Erard, I would have to check) and a modern Steinway. I so much preferred Chopin on the Erard!

[verismissimo]

The clue is in the title: Old and new.

So much richer with both!

[Roehre]

The clue is in the title: Old and new.

So much richer with both!

[BBMmk2]

With EA, mentioning, in his introductory post, re RVW St Matthew passion, the use of piano, I thought it was rather well done nin that particular recording. So much so I went ahead and bought that particular cd.

[Ferretfancy]

I couldn't help wondering at the late night Schubert Prom last week, what would the composer have made of it? There were two Steinways with the performers facing each other over a wide space. In the programme there was a painting of a Schubert evening with a group of friends and admiring ladies clustering around Franz at what appeared to be a small square piano. The modern pianos would hardly have fitted into the room!

We simply don't know what the performance was like back then, but luckily we could enjoy Imogen Cooper and Paul Lewis, with all their sensitivity. I think Schubert would have been impressed. Great musicians transcend the nature of the instruments they play, whether they use modern instruments or historically reconstructed ones.

[verismissimo]

... Great musicians transcend the nature of the instruments they play, whether they use modern instruments or historically reconstructed ones.

That's it, Ferret.

And there are great and not-so-great musicians in both camps.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

With EA, mentioning, in his introductory post, re RVW St Matthew passion, the use of piano, I thought it was rather well done nin that particular recording. So much so I went ahead and bought that particular cd.

It is an excellent performance of the Passion, isn't it? The use of Piano (and other instruments that were contemporary for RVW, rather than Bach) is entirely in keeping wih the concept of the work that RVW had: magnificent in its own terms, with a clear idea of where the architectural points are in the work (cuts notwithstanding) - so much better than Boyd Neel's episodic approach from a few years earlier (which nonetheless has the invaluable contributions of Ferrier , whose contributions radiate out of a rather betreacled performance).

Verismissimo's comment is perfect: not "or", but "and" . In general, I'd prefer to hear Mozart played on instruments making the sort of sounds he expected to appear in the Music he wrote for them. (Similarly, I'd rather not hear Debussy played on a Harpsichord). But when Brendel or Piazzini come along, it seems so silly to let puritanical dogma get in the way of such life-enhancing Music-making.