"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!" Having grown-up on, been trained in and then a part of The Cleveland Orchestra tradition (at the end of the Lorin Maazel, then Dohnanyi period, when a large portion of the George Szell generation was still present) I had the Szell approach to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms (and onwards) knocked into me from excellent teachers from childhood - note-lengths, dots in unslurred dotted-rhythms representing rests, speed of right arm proportional to speed of vibrato, etc. - this is an over simplification but a disciplined and logical approach that emerged from tradition and the greatest integrity. Ultimately, the Szell, Toscanini and Reiner approaches were not dissimilar. In the context of chamber music/great string quartet playing, the Guarneri Quartet largely expanded the Szellian-approach to the quartet literature. My goodness, but when I moved to Helsinki and "preached" the gospel of Szell/Cleveland and the Guarneri Quartet I was abused and belittled (when listening and comparing recordings) by my highly respected, and of a similar age, early to mid-20 years of age, colleagues. For them, there was only one string quartet - the Amadeus Quartet; and several orchestras, whose titles began with Wiener and Berliner, yet their criticisms of my likes/tastes were virtually identical in both - cold, calculated, over-disciplined, academic, etc. and without the warmth and heart of those mentioned. To this day, I don't understand why over-disciplined and academic cannot be in the same category with warm and heart. Why have I written this? As an avid listener and open-mindedness (but my tastes are quite clear) to all approaches and interpretations, the so-called H.I.P. movement fascinated me. I am sorry to be so primitive but if one compares the legendary approaches to the composers mentioned above by Szell and Toscanini, were their approaches any less "revolutionary" when compared with that being recorded in Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam and elsewhere during the similar periods? When the H.I.P. recordings began being released in mass (Nikolaus Harnoncourt excepted) many of the "practices" were influenced, I believe, by those earlier Szell and Toscanini recordings but with added gimmicks and sensationalism. Mr. Hurwitz's presentation is extremely perceptive and correct and I thank him for his continued unflappable commitment to preserving the musical integrity and honesty I took for granted once upon a time.
What's really fascinating is how Toscanini, Reiner & Szell, for all their similarities in approach and discipline, could produce such DIFFERENT results in the recordings of repertoire they had in common. Each gave birth to moments and structural insights which the others could not achieve. To offer a random sample: the precision and utterly rapt quality of Toscanini's 1936 NY LOHENGRIN Act I Prelude; the devastating precision and wit in Szell's Haydn and Schubert "Great"; and Reiner's transcendental, unsentimental pathos in the 1950 TOD UND VERKLARUNG. In the end, genius is inscrutable ! What has bothered me the most about HIP is how composers of genius are more or less made to sound "the same": the personality differences between Bach and Handel, Haydn and Mozart, tend to get obliterated...Especially when one of the great goals of HIP was to strip away what they call "post-Romantic sameness." What they often did was to impose an equal-but-opposite "sameness" of their own. That is, everything from Monteverdi through Berlioz was more or less put through the same "factory jig" - a kind of all-purpose, ascetic Rococo. (Bruno Weil's Schubert "Unfinished" is a perfect example of "authenticism run amok." Think of Schubert a la Stamitz or Quantz!) It's not unlike the late Benny Hill's all-purpose "American" accent : part "Western drawl", part "Noo Yawk Brooklynese." In any case, Maestro, I will take this opportunity to praise your Ukrainian recordings of the two Kalinnikov Symphonies. What a treasure.
Well....I think you have to go beyond Szell and Toscanini....and look at the Main thrust of HIP which was BAROQUE...and the damage wrought. The differences between a Scherchen or Munchinger vs the leanest HIP performances are very startlingly apparant. HIP simply loses the GRANDEUR of the Baroque performances. Alot of Baroque Music was often intended for special occasions, especially large scale choral works. Consider Richter performing Opus 6 of Handel -- the heavy handed strings are drained out in all those lean, fast HIP performances. Listen to Paillard or Richter performing Handel's Organ concertos and his Odes and Te Deums. The trumpet concertos of Vivaldi and Torrelli performed by Scherchen and Paillard vs HIP. Stokowski Transcriptions were designed to enlarge the impact of the mood of the music...and they succeeded. For that matter consider the Munchinger orchestration of the Musical Offering....after I heard that, I did not listen to original orchestration again (I would exclude the Beecham Messiah, but his other Handel and Haydn are quite wonderful.) Listen to Ormandy in the Mono days doing baroque. There are of course exceptions....I would point out Bruggen for Haydn and Beethoven and Bach opened up new insights into the music. As did Saval on Bach and Handel. As did Gardiner on Mozart and Handel. As did Harnoncourt on Mozart and Haydn. ==== As far as "bending" what the composer intended....did not Beethoven say that his musical score was only the begining of the process. Implying that the performer must be an interpreter and know internally what he meant. Of course, Bach wrote out his cadenzas as did beethoven because they did not like what weak performers did. However, in the Baroque it was understood that improvisation and stealing was part of the normal course of performance. Later, as in Beethoven, Fidelity was important, but so was valid emotionalism in the music. HIP wants to stick to the printed page only. As if musical notation could convey every intention the composer had in mind. Which it cant. We also know that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were not happy with the singers of their day or the damn forte piano. And yet...HIP wants boy sopranos for bach and forte pianos for mozart and Haydn and beethoven. And then there is the clavichord......I cant stand that instrument. But it is recorded that Bach liked it......Let it stay buried in history.
If the period instrument people are smart they'll survive by focusing more on discovering new repertoire and playing lesser known composers like Krommer, Kalliwoda and so on. I think that is and has always been their biggest strength. The market for Beethoven and Mozart recordings is oversaturated anyway.
As a sound engineer, a big part of my enjoyment of HIP is the timbre of the music. Period instruments have a completely different frequency response (often more low mids and less highs) and on occasion this can really work, especially in ensemble situations. It certainly produces a more percussive sound that can be essential to emphasising individual voices in polyphony/counterpoint. I wouldn't be a purist about this, and I mostly much prefer a mid voiced piano to a harpsichord, but I do think it's essential to consider the timbral qualities that the music was conceived for. A bright and lush piano sound is not going to do Bach justice for example. Personally, I would also tend to find extra mids welcome in orchestral recordings, given this can be one of the pitfalls of trying to record such a huge sound. Essentially I don't really care about most HIP aspects but there is definitely something to period or period influenced instruments.
Why would a "bright and lush" piano sound not do Bach justice? We have no idea what kind of piano sound Bach himself might have enjoyed, and the music itself has nothing about it that precludes any specific timbre. If anyone taught us that it was Bach, who transcribed anything and everything to all sorts of voices and instruments.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm completely with you on Bach's music generally transcending specific instruments but in this particular case I find that dense, contrapuntal works conceived for harpsichord/clavichord can get pretty washy on a big modern-sounding piano. I'd say I'm not alone in this and a big factor in Gould's enduring popularity is the unusually mid-focused piano sound.
@@DavesClassicalGuide they have a real special timbre. unfortunately the prima donnas at the cemetery frown upon me diggin them up just to get the proper sound. So, I guess we're stuck with the "human touch" of the living. Ho hum
@@AndyGrazianoNYC That would a nice plot for a fantasy novel. A wizard so infatuated with the music of old , decides to resurrect the musicians of those times, no matter the consequences.
I'm the most open minded musician in the world(always looking for something different/new to me) but give me old school/big band Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn everytime 👍
Great chat, as usual. Having somewhat acquainted myself with orchestral performance styles by listening to a great many recordings of the past, I observe that they have changed during that 100+ years. I'm sure this will continue over time. The period instrument thing will run its course. Whatever lasting residue it leaves, if any, will be discerned by future listeners.
Treatises on singing from the 16th and 17th century call for vibrato. The earliest tremulants in organs existed *before the invention of the violin*. I think its okay if I play vibrato in Bach
You are right, but the argument is misleading. All voices have a natural level of vibrato. Vocal treatises may ask for more on top of what's already there, as an expressive ornament. Violins do NOT have a natural level of vibrato. It must be added, first, to create a natural, vocal timbre, and then, additionally, to vary the level of expressive intensity. It is this dual role for vibrato in string playing that most HIP performers confuse or refuse to acknowledge (but treatises such as Leopold Mozart or Geminiani do discuss it, and are either misread or ignored for the simple reason that taking them at their word would not sound "different" enough to modern ears).
@@DavesClassicalGuide YES. This is such a common misconception among string musicians. If you listen to the recordings made by old masters such as Sarasate, Joachim, and his student Auer, you can hear, even through the poor sound quality, that they all used a small, narrow vibrato to give their sound the same vocal timbre described over a century before by Geminiani and Leopold Mozart. Then, when appropriate, they widen their vibrato for more expressive effect. Auer thoroughly detailed this specific use of vibrato in his book "Violin Playing As I Teach It", but his point is often misconstrued as instructing students to play almost senza vib, which is obviously a wrong interpretation seeing as none of his students played that way. Rather, Auer wanted to warn students against the horrible wailing sound of a continuous slow, wide, and dull vibrato, as heard in violinists today such as Sarah Chang (who I absolutely cannot stand to listen to). The old tradition of vibrato only began to evolve in the 20th century with Kreisler, and later Heifetz, who employed a continuous quick and intense vibrato which was never dull, but instead produced a vibrant, shimmering, invigorating tone. Many violinists today are too confused on whether they should use vibrato or not and how exactly it should be used, so they end up producing the same monotonous, dull, unaffecting vibrato that Auer so passionately warned against. One violinist who adapts the old tradition of vibrato into a more modern style of playing is Augustin Hadelich, who is without a doubt one of the greatest young violinists of today.
Oh, one good development of the HIP movement.......they have widened the recorded reportoire....as they explore and bring to light unknown baroque and classical composers.....Of course, I wish others had brought this to light. For example: Telemann discoveries, Vivaldi discoveries, Heinchen, Hasse, Anton Reicha, Stamitz, Krommer and on and on......
They should bow out of recording the standard Classical/Romantic reportoire and focus on reviving lesser known or obscure orchestral composers of the Baroque, Classical, and Classical Romantic periods
@@patrickhackett7881 Hear, hear. Whether one prefers baroque played in HIP style or not, there is at least some basis for the performance selection. There is no similar argument for the late classic and romantic era which when played in HIP fashion is completely lifeless and dull.
I once attended a masterclass given by the great Dutch harpsichordist Gustav Leonhardt. He criticised one performer for playing William Byrd as if it was Baroque music. He felt that the Elizabethan Virginalists were mostly still thinking in Renaissance terms, with a relatively strict “tactus”. He felt the freer, more arpeggiated, non-mesuré style of playing which his own recordings had popularised, that was only appropriate for later Baroque repertoire, approximately starting with Frescobaldi. He didn't think there should be a generalised "early music" style of playing everything.
I'm curious how obvious to people the pitch difference is with, for example, Beethoven symphonies. I don't have perfect pitch but even I can tell that period instrument performances are significantly lowered in pitch from an A=440 modern ensemble especially if I go from the Berlin Phil to a HIP band. Your argument at around 10'15" is spot on - there is a contradiction in arguing that a performance is historically informed and yet making everything sound the same.
If you want to hear an absolutely ghastly examp[le of "historically informed performance" gone totally awry, check out Jos van Immerseel's Gershwini album with Anima Eterna Brugge on Alpha Classics. Immerseel made sure to equip his orchestra with exactly the sorts of hours that existed in Gershwin's time, complete with the right sorts of reeds or brass mouthpieces. Then he took all the works at deadly slow tempi! Records of this music exist not only from Gershwin's time but with his participation, and we know from them that HE WANTED THIS MUSIC PLAYED FAST! I felt sorry for Immerseel's soprano, Claron McFadden, for having to sustain her breath at Immerseel's ultra-slow tempi.
Whether it is the HIP movement or any other school of thought in the arts, those who insist any form of progress is illegitimate are unlikely to have staying power. Certainly, not all HIP proponents share that militant perspective, but those who seek a mostly imagined authenticity at the expense of quality are doomed to failure.
I'm interested in this review from Dave as well. I was surveying some of the performances on my streaming service and all I seem to hear are blaring horns at rapid tempo for some reason....it must be me....
@DJ Quinn Indeed. The orchestra is as dry and pinched as anything led by Norrington. There is no expressive variety: phrases go nowhere; no drama at all. There's no bass. The ensemble wind playing is abysmal - spotty intonation, little attempt to match style or sonority. And on and on. Calling it "cookie-cutter" is being generous.
Appalled to hear that Savall has recorded Beethoven Symphonies. To my ears, the violin played without vibrato produces a ghastly, acerbic, etiolated sound, almost the diametric opposite of the gorgeous string tone we used to admire from the Berlin Philharmonic or the VPO, add a piano that sounds as if has been left in the Brazilian Rain Forest and you have the ghastly, mediocre nonsense we have been told is cleaning these masterpieces of accrued, inappropriate tradition. I wondered if record companies welcomed this nonsense because it at least disguised problems CD had in reproducing violin tone. I am glad, Mr. Hurwitz, that you have had the nous and knowledge to call out this garbage. The Gramophone, whose worship of mediocrity is well known, is partly responsible, but, like all things, for musical evil to flourish it is enough that good men, do, or say, nothing.
The tedious orthodoxy of historically informed performance as, you say, means we can now welcome what we regarded as traditional performances as refreshingly novel. Meanwhile Savall can do Turangalila.
The video mostly discuss HIP forays into Classical and Romantic Repertoire, but what about "Early" (up to the Baroque) Music? Fact is, even if "Common Practice" Repertoire will see a fallback of HIP, for the more ancient one I think it's safe to bet it's here to stay
@@DavesClassicalGuide And that's precisely why HIPs aren't going to die - Their main focus actually is another one than that of "mainstream" Orchestras.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on affect (“affectus”), or stylization of emotion, in 18th-century music. This touches directly on the issue of vibrato - or, more accurately, the degree and timing of vibrato - employed by string and woodwind players, especially in slow movements, which typically are the expressive heart of baroque- and classical-period works. My measure of “periodness” is how musicians treat vibrato, and how it’s used to shape phrases, in largos and adagios.
These period instrument groups seem to exist more on recordings than in concert giving reality. The recorded ones also never seem to be in major cities these days. It could well be that live period instrument performances will disappear as they become financially challenging to sustain. An exception to this is Australia's Brandenburg Ensemble, who have a long running, well supported subscription series in Sydney and Melbourne. They are, however, very different from the ones we hear on recordings, because Paul Dyer is more of a leader than a conductor, and they aren't driven towards being "different", just focused on stylish music making. They also don't make many recordings. I'm not sure how many groups like that exist in the US, Europe and the UK, but that seems more musically sustainable than being controversial for the sake of it.
David..did you address the following?: That Baroque music sounds much different now that we have delved into earlier performance practices in such a way that earlier conductors and symphony orchestras did not? A Szell, or Ormandy or Reiner did not do a lot of Baroque era music if any at all, and I am not certain they were aware of the earlier performance practices at all! The other thing is...nowadays performers on baroque era instrument have gotten really really good on those instruments and have proven that yes, they can be played well in tune and with quite good techniques! PS...I really like the sound of my baroque era timpani for Messiah, etc....it really fits smaller ensembles.
I don't understand the question. I have addressed that point numerous times, and I don't disagree with you (as I said in reply to your previous comment just a few minutes ago). I would only add one point: the reason they play those early instruments so well is because they are not early instruments at all--they are modern copies engineered to modern standards as regards accuracy of pitch, mechanism, uniformity of construction, quality control, etc. There is nothing "authentic" about them.
Sorry to highjack the thread, but I have looked and looked, and can't find an answer to my question, so I will ask it here: Do you have a video on the "best" way to store a cd collection? Even those of us who do not have ROOMS full of cds, need a way to organize. By composer - piece of music - soloist - orchestra - conductor? I have started by composer, and was surprised by how many versions of Bach's Sonatas and Partitas I have, but I am already seeing defects in this method. Your thoughts?
Very very thought provoking…maybe it’s a stretch, but with this topic you’ve caused my cogs to start turning, making parallels that speak to intention and motivation…as a university director and curriculum advisor/external examiner for institutions globally (the academic anti climax being that my subject is fashion design!), I’ve noticed that, over the last 20 years or so, there’s been a major growth and increasing importance placed on departments with varying titles like “faculty development” and such…focusing on rubrics, course leaning outcomes etc…the nature of the job, for the folk employed in this department category, demands that, as soon as they conceive new directives and protocols (the implementation of which, falls on the faculty), they must then begin to conceive of newer and “better” changes, in order to justify their existence…regardless of whether changes are needed…to prove their relevance….I wonder if there is an element of this in the classical music world? In music - a genre that deals predominantly in works that have been infinitely recorded and performed, does the pressure to remain relevant and seemingly innovative, motivate unnecessary and unintelligent “developments”? As I said…maybe I’m making a huge leap, but the possible parallel intrigued me.
I would love you to do a video about your favorite period instrument recordings. Are there any that possess the best of both worlds? It seems like there are some you really enjoy!
Tanks mr. Hurwitz, great analysis! You can see the signs of one of the developments you notice -the getting more and more extreme in interpretation of some H.I,.P.-ensembles, just to obsessively 'be different', for example in the Haydn cycle of Il Gardino Armonico under Giovanni Antonioni.Mannerisms: extreme accents and contrasts in strange places, just awful (I erroneausly bought the 'Il distatto' disk, oh dear.. Your review on Classicstoday is rather mild imo!) By the way, could I mention (i tell you nothing new) in the 60's-70's the more 'mainstream/modern' approach to music before say 1870, represented for example by the orchestra of St. Martin-in-the-fields. Smaller ensembles, brisk(ish) tempo's, lighter, vibrato, etc. I enjoyed them very much but was still delighted to hear for example Mozart and Haydn played by HIP-ensembles. For me at least, they really cleared things up: the brightness, immedeacy, if done well the andantes expressing the emotional content with delicacy... I still enjoy them.
Very successful realisations within the new paradigm, that can vie with the oldies: the Osmo Vänskä & Riccardo Chailly cycles ! Also, you seem to ignore the performance monopoly of HIP regarding the vast baroque repertoire? Do you think that we will soon (again) hear the Berliner Philharmoniker perform Telemann's viola concerti or Corelli's Concerti Grossi?
1. The period instrument folks will continue to dominate with earlier music, but will eventually fall out of favor in the standard 19th century orchestral reportoire. 2. Some of the HIP realizations of classical and even early Romantic were "successful" but they aren't special anymore. In the future, HIP will be out of fashion in the concert hall and in newer recordings, yet CM fans will be recommending classic old-style HIP recordings.
When I was in college, my music teacher told the class that if we attend a Mozart concert, and they are playing a piano concerto, and if the soloist is not using a pianoforte, then he is not giving you an authentic representation of his music. No one in class said anything, but I thought his statement was baloney. I've always hated HIP and am so glad that you made this video to announce the death of period performance. A death that should have died decades ago.
Interesting that you hear a lack of variation in approaches on historical instruments than in mainstream classical performances. I’ve often heard the oposite argument from proponenets of mainstream performances - that period performances are all so different, that those performances are somrhow «invalid» because they are not in agreement with oneanother. Seems that mainstream classical music is still confounded with period performances and what they really bring to the market - and most of them still hasn’t a clue why these period performances exist. It just flew over theire head.
That's because criticism goes both ways. Period "historically informed" performances claim they've found an objective truth. The way the music "ought to be played" and "what the composer would have wanted/expected to hear ". So, the fact they're not in agreement sort of debases that claim. And, at the same time, they've created some mannerisms that are fast becoming tired, mindless, cliches. For string players: no slurs! Broken chords! Substitute bow speed for vibrato, so you have these "inflated" notes instead! Tune at 432! Extreme dynamic/tempo contrasts! Honestly, the older I am the most I appreciate the good old, honest, Karl Richter recordings...
@@uccelino If it's not a religion, you sound pretty much like its apostle. BTW, yes, I know how research works. As a matter of fact, I'll start working full time as a predoctoral researcher next September and that's precisely why I know obscure peer-reviewed papers rarely get put into practice and are basically CV stuffers for career academicians. And there's no denying period performances and scholarship have made its valuable contributions, but I pretty much agree with David on everything. It's no longer a historically-informed contribution. Besides a group of very, very good especialized performers, its mass (and for the most part mindless) adoption by "mainstream" musicians has turned it into a fossilized list of dogmas.
@@dionbaillargeon4899 Again lost for words! Your sweeping generalisations, calling names, and cynicism will make you an excellent researcher. Good luck with that. - Just please stay away from music, we don’t need another muppet screwing up.
@@uccelino I see you're not only an apostle, but the supreme judge. You don't know me, so you can spare your ridiculous ad hominem attacks (very conveniently hidden behind an anonymous account) for those who who still dare to play those old Bach editions or, worse, old Nineteenth-Century arrangements of Eighteenth-Century music, which I suppose is the supreme sin. BTW, I'm not cynical, but clearly you've no idea about how publication requirements work in order to get tenure and the many problems with peer-reviewed journals. Also, I wonder if you're really a practicing musician that regularly works with students and are aware of how all this theoretical knowledge really percolates and is passed on to players. There's a difference between being cynical and being skeptical.
While I’m sure that I agree with you, I don’t think I understand the argument on their side. I would be curious to hear how you might present their perspective (even if it is wrong). I’ve seen a few of your videos discussing the period instrument movement, and have found them all to be interesting and informative.
I think their argument is they want all eras of music to sound similar in style. The counterpoint is that Brahms and Beethoven and the Romantics did not write for baroque instruments.
So, it really is about cultural evolution. HIP may well have run its course, but we are not returning to what was before. Some of the HIP ideas will live, some will die perhaps deservedly so.
I hope you are right. I am afraid the proliferation of the HIP performance practice will turn alot of listeners away from earlier music. The grandeur of the Baroque and the Power of the classical period music gets lost with HIP. For me, for the Baroque give me Scherchen, Paillard, Richter and I Musici. For the Classical.....Scherchen, Klemperer, Walter, Harnoncourt - yet Harnoncourt etc. Large grand forces and wonderfully shaped enabling all the music to come through. No more of the frenetic, racing tiny groups.
Of course there are so many more UN-HIP recordings.....such as Beecham (haydn, handel, mozart in particular), Toscanini (haydn and beethoven), Munchinger to name a few. There are some really good HIP performers: Saval, Bruggen and some of Gardiner and Leonhardt and much of early Harnoncourt...... but there are so many really THIN, WEAK, Frenetic HIP recordings......
I somewhat prefer HIP Mozart and Baroque over old-style recordings. I even like a little Romanatic HIP, like Schubert's Arpeggoine Sonata with an arpeggoine.
There is an arrogance to those conductors who insist in HIP performance. They do not know what was don hundreds of years ago and do they not imagine that those long dead composers might actually enjoy hearing a modern sound from an orchestra?
That's essentially saying it's arrogant for conductors to have an opinion on how they want the music to sound. Because how is it any less arrogant to say the modern instruments are better than the ones the composer actually wrote for? It's the conductor's job to make a choice, and have an opinion. They have every freedom to decide on replicating or throwing aside historical circumstances, and there are myriad reasons to go one way or the other-not to speak of the fact that of course it's not a black and white issue.
@@simonalbrecht9435 Haydn, Beethoven, et al would have been overjoyed to write for better-sounding modern instruments and ensembles. They had the misfortune to be composing before the instruments improved.
@@patrickhackett7881 I think that older instruments have their own qualities and charm to be appreciated, even if modern instruments may be more powerful, versatile and reliable and equally beautiful. Also, Beethoven had some of the best musicians of his time play his works, I'm sure they were capable of sounding great.
@@simonalbrecht9435 Power Versatility Reliability That's why HIP style performances will be banished to the Baroque era in time. Modern Instrument ensembles will tire of playing their Classical and Early Romantic reportoire HIP style, and will move on to something else. Period instrument groups will either have to flee into the Baroque or attempt to revive obscure Classical and early Romantic works. Or they can die a quicker death doing what Jacobs and the B'Rock Orchestra did with the Schubert symphonies.
I'm a beginner at this, but I don't see what's wrong with playing these historical pieces as they were written, rather than versions arranged for modern instruments.
Versions for modern instruments are not "arrangements," and there is no firm evidence that the way we play on historical instruments is how they sounded back in the day.
Maybe they have called Bach and got all the information they needed... maybe also recordings from Bach. Just joking! I think a record of Joachim or Sarasate playing Bach will be ever closer to what he wanted and not this contemporary "art" called "antique". But of course HIP gives a job to many people, that for sure!
@@jeffreycubaviolinist pretty sure he didn't write his music for instruments that were invented around the turn of the 20th century. The timbre and intonation of period instruments is much more pleasant, even if it takes more skill to play them. If you wanna play recorder parts on flutes and lute and viol parts on cellos or something, I guess that's fine, but why so much hate for people want to hear things on instruments that actually existed when the music was composed?
Well... As far as I'm concerned, to play for example, a baroque violin in this contemporary new invented baroque style, could be done by an amateur without complications...but to play for example like Henryk Szeryng, would be (for an amateur)...impossible!
@@jeffreycubaviolinist I'm not really clued in to the what is implied stylistically, but that seems to be a separate issue from period instruments vs. modern instruments.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!" Having grown-up on, been trained in and then a part of The Cleveland Orchestra tradition (at the end of the Lorin Maazel, then Dohnanyi period, when a large portion of the George Szell generation was still present) I had the Szell approach to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms (and onwards) knocked into me from excellent teachers from childhood - note-lengths, dots in unslurred dotted-rhythms representing rests, speed of right arm proportional to speed of vibrato, etc. - this is an over simplification but a disciplined and logical approach that emerged from tradition and the greatest integrity. Ultimately, the Szell, Toscanini and Reiner approaches were not dissimilar. In the context of chamber music/great string quartet playing, the Guarneri Quartet largely expanded the Szellian-approach to the quartet literature. My goodness, but when I moved to Helsinki and "preached" the gospel of Szell/Cleveland and the Guarneri Quartet I was abused and belittled (when listening and comparing recordings) by my highly respected, and of a similar age, early to mid-20 years of age, colleagues. For them, there was only one string quartet - the Amadeus Quartet; and several orchestras, whose titles began with Wiener and Berliner, yet their criticisms of my likes/tastes were virtually identical in both - cold, calculated, over-disciplined, academic, etc. and without the warmth and heart of those mentioned. To this day, I don't understand why over-disciplined and academic cannot be in the same category with warm and heart. Why have I written this? As an avid listener and open-mindedness (but my tastes are quite clear) to all approaches and interpretations, the so-called H.I.P. movement fascinated me. I am sorry to be so primitive but if one compares the legendary approaches to the composers mentioned above by Szell and Toscanini, were their approaches any less "revolutionary" when compared with that being recorded in Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam and elsewhere during the similar periods? When the H.I.P. recordings began being released in mass (Nikolaus Harnoncourt excepted) many of the "practices" were influenced, I believe, by those earlier Szell and Toscanini recordings but with added gimmicks and sensationalism. Mr. Hurwitz's presentation is extremely perceptive and correct and I thank him for his continued unflappable commitment to preserving the musical integrity and honesty I took for granted once upon a time.
What's really fascinating is how Toscanini, Reiner & Szell, for all their similarities in approach and discipline, could produce such DIFFERENT results in the recordings of repertoire they had in common. Each gave birth to moments and structural insights which the others could not achieve. To offer a random sample: the precision and utterly rapt quality of Toscanini's 1936 NY LOHENGRIN Act I Prelude; the devastating precision and wit in Szell's Haydn and Schubert "Great"; and Reiner's transcendental, unsentimental pathos in the 1950 TOD UND VERKLARUNG. In the end, genius is inscrutable !
What has bothered me the most about HIP is how composers of genius are more or less made to sound "the same": the personality differences between Bach and Handel, Haydn and Mozart, tend to get obliterated...Especially when one of the great goals of HIP was to strip away what they call "post-Romantic sameness." What they often did was to impose an equal-but-opposite "sameness" of their own. That is, everything from Monteverdi through Berlioz was more or less put through the same "factory jig" - a kind of all-purpose, ascetic Rococo. (Bruno Weil's Schubert "Unfinished" is a perfect example of "authenticism run amok." Think of Schubert a la Stamitz or Quantz!) It's not unlike the late Benny Hill's all-purpose "American" accent : part "Western drawl", part "Noo Yawk Brooklynese."
In any case, Maestro, I will take this opportunity to praise your Ukrainian recordings of the two Kalinnikov Symphonies. What a treasure.
Well....I think you have to go beyond Szell and Toscanini....and look at the Main thrust of HIP which was BAROQUE...and the damage wrought. The differences between a Scherchen or Munchinger vs the leanest HIP performances are very startlingly apparant. HIP simply loses the GRANDEUR of the Baroque performances. Alot of Baroque Music was often intended for special occasions, especially large scale choral works. Consider Richter performing Opus 6 of Handel -- the heavy handed strings are drained out in all those lean, fast HIP performances. Listen to Paillard or Richter performing Handel's Organ concertos and his Odes and Te Deums. The trumpet concertos of Vivaldi and Torrelli performed by Scherchen and Paillard vs HIP. Stokowski Transcriptions were designed to enlarge the impact of the mood of the music...and they succeeded. For that matter consider the Munchinger orchestration of the Musical Offering....after I heard that, I did not listen to original orchestration again (I would exclude the Beecham Messiah, but his other Handel and Haydn are quite wonderful.)
Listen to Ormandy in the Mono days doing baroque.
There are of course exceptions....I would point out Bruggen for Haydn and Beethoven and Bach opened up new insights into the music. As did Saval on Bach and Handel. As did Gardiner on Mozart and Handel. As did Harnoncourt on Mozart and Haydn.
====
As far as "bending" what the composer intended....did not Beethoven say that his musical score was only the begining of the process. Implying that the performer must be an interpreter and know internally what he meant. Of course, Bach wrote out his cadenzas as did beethoven because they did not like what weak performers did. However, in the Baroque it was understood that improvisation and stealing was part of the normal course of performance. Later, as in Beethoven, Fidelity was important, but so was valid emotionalism in the music. HIP wants to stick to the printed page only. As if musical notation could convey every intention the composer had in mind. Which it cant.
We also know that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were not happy with the singers of their day or the damn forte piano. And yet...HIP wants boy sopranos for bach and forte pianos for mozart and Haydn and beethoven. And then there is the clavichord......I cant stand that instrument. But it is recorded that Bach liked it......Let it stay buried in history.
If the period instrument people are smart they'll survive by focusing more on discovering new repertoire and playing lesser known composers like Krommer, Kalliwoda and so on. I think that is and has always been their biggest strength. The market for Beethoven and Mozart recordings is oversaturated anyway.
I'll always have a soft spot for my 1980s early digital HIP recordings performed by Schick electric razors and buzzsaws.
Throw in a washboard and you will have true musical art.
As a sound engineer, a big part of my enjoyment of HIP is the timbre of the music. Period instruments have a completely different frequency response (often more low mids and less highs) and on occasion this can really work, especially in ensemble situations. It certainly produces a more percussive sound that can be essential to emphasising individual voices in polyphony/counterpoint. I wouldn't be a purist about this, and I mostly much prefer a mid voiced piano to a harpsichord, but I do think it's essential to consider the timbral qualities that the music was conceived for. A bright and lush piano sound is not going to do Bach justice for example. Personally, I would also tend to find extra mids welcome in orchestral recordings, given this can be one of the pitfalls of trying to record such a huge sound. Essentially I don't really care about most HIP aspects but there is definitely something to period or period influenced instruments.
Why would a "bright and lush" piano sound not do Bach justice? We have no idea what kind of piano sound Bach himself might have enjoyed, and the music itself has nothing about it that precludes any specific timbre. If anyone taught us that it was Bach, who transcribed anything and everything to all sorts of voices and instruments.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm completely with you on Bach's music generally transcending specific instruments but in this particular case I find that dense, contrapuntal works conceived for harpsichord/clavichord can get pretty washy on a big modern-sounding piano. I'd say I'm not alone in this and a big factor in Gould's enduring popularity is the unusually mid-focused piano sound.
I love music of the renaissance and earlier, and think those genres tend to sound more interesting when done on the older instruments
You mean like dead singers?
@@DavesClassicalGuide they have a real special timbre. unfortunately the prima donnas at the cemetery frown upon me diggin them up just to get the proper sound. So, I guess we're stuck with the "human touch" of the living. Ho hum
@@AndyGrazianoNYC That would a nice plot for a fantasy novel. A wizard so infatuated with the music of old , decides to resurrect the musicians of those times, no matter the consequences.
@@ulisesdemostenes7074 at least you would learn a lot about performance practice of the day!
@@AndyGrazianoNYCAnd the old dead singers might just prefer the modern interpretations.
I'm the most open minded musician in the world(always looking for something different/new to me) but give me old school/big band Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn everytime 👍
Well done, insightful presentation on so-called historical/period instrument performances, David. Thanks for sharing!
Great chat, as usual. Having somewhat acquainted myself with orchestral performance styles by listening to a great many recordings of the past, I observe that they have changed during that 100+ years. I'm sure this will continue over time. The period instrument thing will run its course. Whatever lasting residue it leaves, if any, will be discerned by future listeners.
Treatises on singing from the 16th and 17th century call for vibrato. The earliest tremulants in organs existed *before the invention of the violin*. I think its okay if I play vibrato in Bach
You are right, but the argument is misleading. All voices have a natural level of vibrato. Vocal treatises may ask for more on top of what's already there, as an expressive ornament. Violins do NOT have a natural level of vibrato. It must be added, first, to create a natural, vocal timbre, and then, additionally, to vary the level of expressive intensity. It is this dual role for vibrato in string playing that most HIP performers confuse or refuse to acknowledge (but treatises such as Leopold Mozart or Geminiani do discuss it, and are either misread or ignored for the simple reason that taking them at their word would not sound "different" enough to modern ears).
@@DavesClassicalGuide YES. This is such a common misconception among string musicians. If you listen to the recordings made by old masters such as Sarasate, Joachim, and his student Auer, you can hear, even through the poor sound quality, that they all used a small, narrow vibrato to give their sound the same vocal timbre described over a century before by Geminiani and Leopold Mozart. Then, when appropriate, they widen their vibrato for more expressive effect. Auer thoroughly detailed this specific use of vibrato in his book "Violin Playing As I Teach It", but his point is often misconstrued as instructing students to play almost senza vib, which is obviously a wrong interpretation seeing as none of his students played that way. Rather, Auer wanted to warn students against the horrible wailing sound of a continuous slow, wide, and dull vibrato, as heard in violinists today such as Sarah Chang (who I absolutely cannot stand to listen to). The old tradition of vibrato only began to evolve in the 20th century with Kreisler, and later Heifetz, who employed a continuous quick and intense vibrato which was never dull, but instead produced a vibrant, shimmering, invigorating tone. Many violinists today are too confused on whether they should use vibrato or not and how exactly it should be used, so they end up producing the same monotonous, dull, unaffecting vibrato that Auer so passionately warned against. One violinist who adapts the old tradition of vibrato into a more modern style of playing is Augustin Hadelich, who is without a doubt one of the greatest young violinists of today.
Oh, one good development of the HIP movement.......they have widened the recorded reportoire....as they explore and bring to light unknown baroque and classical composers.....Of course, I wish others had brought this to light. For example: Telemann discoveries, Vivaldi discoveries, Heinchen, Hasse, Anton Reicha, Stamitz, Krommer and on and on......
They should bow out of recording the standard Classical/Romantic reportoire and focus on reviving lesser known or obscure orchestral composers of the Baroque, Classical, and Classical Romantic periods
It's great music but it's too painful experience to listen on period instruments.
@@patrickhackett7881 Hear, hear. Whether one prefers baroque played in HIP style or not, there is at least some basis for the performance selection. There is no similar argument for the late classic and romantic era which when played in HIP fashion is completely lifeless and dull.
I once attended a masterclass given by the great Dutch harpsichordist Gustav Leonhardt. He criticised one performer for playing William Byrd as if it was Baroque music. He felt that the Elizabethan Virginalists were mostly still thinking in Renaissance terms, with a relatively strict “tactus”. He felt the freer, more arpeggiated, non-mesuré style of playing which his own recordings had popularised, that was only appropriate for later Baroque repertoire, approximately starting with Frescobaldi. He didn't think there should be a generalised "early music" style of playing everything.
Yes, but he could have been completely wrong, as he so often was about later music.
I'm curious how obvious to people the pitch difference is with, for example, Beethoven symphonies. I don't have perfect pitch but even I can tell that period instrument performances are significantly lowered in pitch from an A=440 modern ensemble especially if I go from the Berlin Phil to a HIP band. Your argument at around 10'15" is spot on - there is a contradiction in arguing that a performance is historically informed and yet making everything sound the same.
If you want to hear an absolutely ghastly examp[le of "historically informed performance" gone totally awry, check out Jos van Immerseel's Gershwini album with Anima Eterna Brugge on Alpha Classics. Immerseel made sure to equip his orchestra with exactly the sorts of hours that existed in Gershwin's time, complete with the right sorts of reeds or brass mouthpieces. Then he took all the works at deadly slow tempi! Records of this music exist not only from Gershwin's time but with his participation, and we know from them that HE WANTED THIS MUSIC PLAYED FAST! I felt sorry for Immerseel's soprano, Claron McFadden, for having to sustain her breath at Immerseel's ultra-slow tempi.
Sounds like a Chelibidace view of Gershwin.
Whether it is the HIP movement or any other school of thought in the arts, those who insist any form of progress is illegitimate are unlikely to have staying power. Certainly, not all HIP proponents share that militant perspective, but those who seek a mostly imagined authenticity at the expense of quality are doomed to failure.
Speaking of cookie-cutter HIP performances, I'm looking forward to your review of the just released Nézet-Séguin Beethoven cycle with COE...
I'm interested in this review from Dave as well. I was surveying some of the performances on my streaming service and all I seem to hear are blaring horns at rapid tempo for some reason....it must be me....
@DJ Quinn Indeed. The orchestra is as dry and pinched as anything led by Norrington. There is no expressive variety: phrases go nowhere; no drama at all. There's no bass. The ensemble wind playing is abysmal - spotty intonation, little attempt to match style or sonority. And on and on. Calling it "cookie-cutter" is being generous.
@djquinn4212Thanks for the warning. Excuse me while I go hug my Furtwangler E.Kleiber, Klemperer and Szell recordings much tighter.
Appalled to hear that Savall has recorded Beethoven Symphonies. To my ears, the violin played without vibrato produces a ghastly, acerbic, etiolated sound, almost the diametric opposite of the gorgeous string tone we used to admire from the Berlin Philharmonic or the VPO, add a piano that sounds as if has been left in the Brazilian Rain Forest and you have the ghastly, mediocre nonsense we have been told is cleaning these masterpieces of accrued, inappropriate tradition. I wondered if record companies welcomed this nonsense because it at least disguised problems CD had in reproducing violin tone. I am glad, Mr. Hurwitz, that you have had the nous and knowledge to call out this garbage. The Gramophone, whose worship of mediocrity is well known, is partly responsible, but, like all things, for musical evil to flourish it is enough that good men, do, or say, nothing.
"Musicians are not the brightest bulb in the intellectual chandelier." Oh man! 😂 As a musician, I resemble that remark.
The tedious orthodoxy of historically informed performance as, you say, means we can now welcome what we regarded as traditional performances as refreshingly novel. Meanwhile Savall can do Turangalila.
@WhatsApp±177𝟶𝟽𝟹77𝟷𝟷0 Go away
The video mostly discuss HIP forays into Classical and Romantic Repertoire, but what about "Early" (up to the Baroque) Music? Fact is, even if "Common Practice" Repertoire will see a fallback of HIP, for the more ancient one I think it's safe to bet it's here to stay
I don't disagree at all, but that wasn't the point because that's not what most orchestras play.
@@DavesClassicalGuide And that's precisely why HIPs aren't going to die - Their main focus actually is another one than that of "mainstream" Orchestras.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on affect (“affectus”), or stylization of emotion, in 18th-century music. This touches directly on the issue of vibrato - or, more accurately, the degree and timing of vibrato - employed by string and woodwind players, especially in slow movements, which typically are the expressive heart of baroque- and classical-period works. My measure of “periodness” is how musicians treat vibrato, and how it’s used to shape phrases, in largos and adagios.
These period instrument groups seem to exist more on recordings than in concert giving reality. The recorded ones also never seem to be in major cities these days. It could well be that live period instrument performances will disappear as they become financially challenging to sustain. An exception to this is Australia's Brandenburg Ensemble, who have a long running, well supported subscription series in Sydney and Melbourne. They are, however, very different from the ones we hear on recordings, because Paul Dyer is more of a leader than a conductor, and they aren't driven towards being "different", just focused on stylish music making. They also don't make many recordings. I'm not sure how many groups like that exist in the US, Europe and the UK, but that seems more musically sustainable than being controversial for the sake of it.
Hoorah. Happy days.
David..did you address the following?: That Baroque music sounds much different now that we have delved into earlier performance practices in such a way that earlier conductors and symphony orchestras did not? A Szell, or Ormandy or Reiner did not do a lot of Baroque era music if any at all, and I am not certain they were aware of the earlier performance practices at all! The other thing is...nowadays performers on baroque era instrument have gotten really really good on those instruments and have proven that yes, they can be played well in tune and with quite good techniques!
PS...I really like the sound of my baroque era timpani for Messiah, etc....it really fits smaller ensembles.
I don't understand the question. I have addressed that point numerous times, and I don't disagree with you (as I said in reply to your previous comment just a few minutes ago). I would only add one point: the reason they play those early instruments so well is because they are not early instruments at all--they are modern copies engineered to modern standards as regards accuracy of pitch, mechanism, uniformity of construction, quality control, etc. There is nothing "authentic" about them.
Sorry to highjack the thread, but I have looked and looked, and can't find an answer to my question, so I will ask it here: Do you have a video on the "best" way to store a cd collection? Even those of us who do not have ROOMS full of cds, need a way to organize. By composer - piece of music - soloist - orchestra - conductor? I have started by composer, and was surprised by how many versions of Bach's Sonatas and Partitas I have, but I am already seeing defects in this method. Your thoughts?
Yes I do. ruclips.net/video/yRGW7YJyd-8/видео.html
Very very thought provoking…maybe it’s a stretch, but with this topic you’ve caused my cogs to start turning, making parallels that speak to intention and motivation…as a university director and curriculum advisor/external examiner for institutions globally (the academic anti climax being that my subject is fashion design!), I’ve noticed that, over the last 20 years or so, there’s been a major growth and increasing importance placed on departments with varying titles like “faculty development” and such…focusing on rubrics, course leaning outcomes etc…the nature of the job, for the folk employed in this department category, demands that, as soon as they conceive new directives and protocols (the implementation of which, falls on the faculty), they must then begin to conceive of newer and “better” changes, in order to justify their existence…regardless of whether changes are needed…to prove their relevance….I wonder if there is an element of this in the classical music world?
In music - a genre that deals predominantly in works that have been infinitely recorded and performed, does the pressure to remain relevant and seemingly innovative, motivate unnecessary and unintelligent “developments”? As I said…maybe I’m making a huge leap, but the possible parallel intrigued me.
I would love you to do a video about your favorite period instrument recordings. Are there any that possess the best of both worlds? It seems like there are some you really enjoy!
Already did, and recently.
Awesome, I found it. Thank you!
Tanks mr. Hurwitz, great analysis! You can see the signs of one of the developments you notice -the getting more and more extreme in interpretation of some H.I,.P.-ensembles, just to obsessively 'be different', for example in the Haydn cycle of Il Gardino Armonico under Giovanni Antonioni.Mannerisms: extreme accents and contrasts in strange places, just awful (I erroneausly bought the 'Il distatto' disk, oh dear.. Your review on Classicstoday is rather mild imo!) By the way, could I mention (i tell you nothing new) in the 60's-70's the more 'mainstream/modern' approach to music before say 1870, represented for example by the orchestra of St. Martin-in-the-fields. Smaller ensembles, brisk(ish) tempo's, lighter, vibrato, etc. I enjoyed them very much but was still delighted to hear for example Mozart and Haydn played by HIP-ensembles. For me at least, they really cleared things up: the brightness, immedeacy, if done well the andantes expressing the emotional content with delicacy... I still enjoy them.
Very successful realisations within the new paradigm, that can vie with the oldies: the Osmo Vänskä & Riccardo Chailly cycles !
Also, you seem to ignore the performance monopoly of HIP regarding the vast baroque repertoire? Do you think that we will soon (again) hear the Berliner Philharmoniker perform Telemann's viola concerti or Corelli's Concerti Grossi?
1. The period instrument folks will continue to dominate with earlier music, but will eventually fall out of favor in the standard 19th century orchestral reportoire.
2. Some of the HIP realizations of classical and even early Romantic were "successful" but they aren't special anymore. In the future, HIP will be out of fashion in the concert hall and in newer recordings, yet CM fans will be recommending classic old-style HIP recordings.
When I was in college, my music teacher told the class that if we attend a Mozart concert, and they are playing a piano concerto, and if the soloist is not using a pianoforte, then he is not giving you an authentic representation of his music. No one in class said anything, but I thought his statement was baloney. I've always hated HIP and am so glad that you made this video to announce the death of period performance. A death that should have died decades ago.
HUZZAH!
Interesting that you hear a lack of variation in approaches on historical instruments than in mainstream classical performances. I’ve often heard the oposite argument from proponenets of mainstream performances - that period performances are all so different, that those performances are somrhow «invalid» because they are not in agreement with oneanother. Seems that mainstream classical music is still confounded with period performances and what they really bring to the market - and most of them still hasn’t a clue why these period performances exist. It just flew over theire head.
That's because criticism goes both ways. Period "historically informed" performances claim they've found an objective truth. The way the music "ought to be played" and "what the composer would have wanted/expected to hear ". So, the fact they're not in agreement sort of debases that claim. And, at the same time, they've created some mannerisms that are fast becoming tired, mindless, cliches. For string players: no slurs! Broken chords! Substitute bow speed for vibrato, so you have these "inflated" notes instead! Tune at 432! Extreme dynamic/tempo contrasts! Honestly, the older I am the most I appreciate the good old, honest, Karl Richter recordings...
@@uccelino If it's not a religion, you sound pretty much like its apostle. BTW, yes, I know how research works. As a matter of fact, I'll start working full time as a predoctoral researcher next September and that's precisely why I know obscure peer-reviewed papers rarely get put into practice and are basically CV stuffers for career academicians.
And there's no denying period performances and scholarship have made its valuable contributions, but I pretty much agree with David on everything. It's no longer a historically-informed contribution. Besides a group of very, very good especialized performers, its mass (and for the most part mindless) adoption by "mainstream" musicians has turned it into a fossilized list of dogmas.
@@dionbaillargeon4899 Again lost for words! Your sweeping generalisations, calling names, and cynicism will make you an excellent researcher. Good luck with that. - Just please stay away from music, we don’t need another muppet screwing up.
@@uccelino I see you're not only an apostle, but the supreme judge. You don't know me, so you can spare your ridiculous ad hominem attacks (very conveniently hidden behind an anonymous account) for those who who still dare to play those old Bach editions or, worse, old Nineteenth-Century arrangements of Eighteenth-Century music, which I suppose is the supreme sin.
BTW, I'm not cynical, but clearly you've no idea about how publication requirements work in order to get tenure and the many problems with peer-reviewed journals. Also, I wonder if you're really a practicing musician that regularly works with students and are aware of how all this theoretical knowledge really percolates and is passed on to players. There's a difference between being cynical and being skeptical.
While I’m sure that I agree with you, I don’t think I understand the argument on their side. I would be curious to hear how you might present their perspective (even if it is wrong). I’ve seen a few of your videos discussing the period instrument movement, and have found them all to be interesting and informative.
I think their argument is they want all eras of music to sound similar in style. The counterpoint is that Brahms and Beethoven and the Romantics did not write for baroque instruments.
So, it really is about cultural evolution. HIP may well have run its course, but we are not returning to what was before. Some of the HIP ideas will live, some will die perhaps deservedly so.
...The death of HIP @and@ Academic Serialism?
Almost too much to hope for.
I honestly don't understand why we need new recordings of the standard repertoire at all, other than making $ for conductors, soloists, and ensembles.
You answered your own question.
I hope you are right. I am afraid the proliferation of the HIP performance practice will turn alot of listeners away from earlier music. The grandeur of the Baroque and the Power of the classical period music gets lost with HIP. For me, for the Baroque give me Scherchen, Paillard, Richter and I Musici. For the Classical.....Scherchen, Klemperer, Walter, Harnoncourt - yet Harnoncourt etc. Large grand forces and wonderfully shaped enabling all the music to come through. No more of the frenetic, racing tiny groups.
Of course there are so many more UN-HIP recordings.....such as Beecham (haydn, handel, mozart in particular), Toscanini (haydn and beethoven), Munchinger to name a few.
There are some really good HIP performers: Saval, Bruggen and some of Gardiner and Leonhardt and much of early Harnoncourt...... but there are so many really THIN, WEAK, Frenetic HIP recordings......
I somewhat prefer HIP Mozart and Baroque over old-style recordings. I even like a little Romanatic HIP, like Schubert's Arpeggoine Sonata with an arpeggoine.
What's sad is some Handel opera recordings you can hear only on HIP and fully appreciate the beauty of the music, no modern version is available.
I hope he's right but I fear that economics is against. HIP requires smaller, cheaper forces and that counts for a lot in a shrinking market.
That's not how the arts are financed.
There is an arrogance to those conductors who insist in HIP performance. They do not know what was don hundreds of years ago and do they not imagine that those long dead composers might actually enjoy hearing a modern sound from an orchestra?
Composers might have loved most HIP style performances, too. They'd be better played than at the time, at the very least.
That's essentially saying it's arrogant for conductors to have an opinion on how they want the music to sound. Because how is it any less arrogant to say the modern instruments are better than the ones the composer actually wrote for?
It's the conductor's job to make a choice, and have an opinion. They have every freedom to decide on replicating or throwing aside historical circumstances, and there are myriad reasons to go one way or the other-not to speak of the fact that of course it's not a black and white issue.
@@simonalbrecht9435 Haydn, Beethoven, et al would have been overjoyed to write for better-sounding modern instruments and ensembles. They had the misfortune to be composing before the instruments improved.
@@patrickhackett7881 I think that older instruments have their own qualities and charm to be appreciated, even if modern instruments may be more powerful, versatile and reliable and equally beautiful. Also, Beethoven had some of the best musicians of his time play his works, I'm sure they were capable of sounding great.
@@simonalbrecht9435
Power
Versatility
Reliability
That's why HIP style performances will be banished to the Baroque era in time.
Modern Instrument ensembles will tire of playing their Classical and Early Romantic reportoire HIP style, and will move on to something else.
Period instrument groups will either have to flee into the Baroque or attempt to revive obscure Classical and early Romantic works.
Or they can die a quicker death doing what Jacobs and the B'Rock Orchestra did with the Schubert symphonies.
I'm a beginner at this, but I don't see what's wrong with playing these historical pieces as they were written, rather than versions arranged for modern instruments.
Versions for modern instruments are not "arrangements," and there is no firm evidence that the way we play on historical instruments is how they sounded back in the day.
Maybe they have called Bach and got all the information they needed... maybe also recordings from Bach. Just joking! I think a record of Joachim or Sarasate playing Bach will be ever closer to what he wanted and not this contemporary "art" called "antique". But of course HIP gives a job to many people, that for sure!
@@jeffreycubaviolinist pretty sure he didn't write his music for instruments that were invented around the turn of the 20th century. The timbre and intonation of period instruments is much more pleasant, even if it takes more skill to play them. If you wanna play recorder parts on flutes and lute and viol parts on cellos or something, I guess that's fine, but why so much hate for people want to hear things on instruments that actually existed when the music was composed?
Well... As far as I'm concerned, to play for example, a baroque violin in this contemporary new invented baroque style, could be done by an amateur without complications...but to play for example like Henryk Szeryng, would be (for an amateur)...impossible!
@@jeffreycubaviolinist I'm not really clued in to the what is implied stylistically, but that seems to be a separate issue from period instruments vs. modern instruments.
8:16 lol
Couldn't disagree more. And you are FAR too generalizing...