• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Classical Instruments: Historical or Modern?

I'm going to look into this as it sounds fascinating what a marvel it must have been.


After wiki:

"Probably the low point in the performance occurred during the Choral Fantasy, which had been insufficiently rehearsed; adherence to the score fell apart at one point, leading Beethoven to stop and restart the piece. Ignaz von Seyfried later wrote:,[7][20]

When the master brought out his orchestral Fantasia with choruses, he arranged with me at the somewhat hurried rehearsal, with wet[21] voice-parts as usual, that the second variation should be played without repeat. In the evening, however, absorbed in his creation, he forgot all about the instructions which he had given, repeated the first part while the orchestra accompanied the second, which sounded not altogether edifying. A trifle too late, the Concertmaster, Unrath, noticed the mistake, looked in surprise at his lost companions, stopped playing and called out dryly: 'Again!' A little displeased, the violinist Anton Wranitzky asked 'With repeats?' 'Yes,' came the answer, and now the thing went straight as a string.
This part of Seyfried's account emphasizes the humor of the situation, but there were also some negative consequences for Beethoven. Seyfried goes on:[20]

At first [Beethoven] could not understand that he had in a manner humiliated the musicians. He thought it was a duty to correct an error that had been made and that the audience was entitled to hear everything properly played, for its money. But he readily and heartily begged the pardon of the orchestra for the humiliation to which he had subjected it, and was honest enough to spread the story himself and assume all responsibility for his own absence of mind.

Yea such things happened :) and today it would be nearly impossible to happen. Overall, for sure general level of performance perfection is now much higher than even in late 19th century.

Also in wiki entry there is mention about amateurs and sami professionals. Today we generally see amateur as much inferior to professional musician but in 18th century often it would mean that professional simply play music to earn for living, amateur on the other hand played for pleasure not to earn money. Sometimes amateur musician was as good as professional.
 
Today we generally see amateur as much inferior to professional musician but in 18th century often it would mean that professional simply play music to earn for living, amateur on the other hand played for pleasure not to earn money. Sometimes amateur musician was as good as professional.
The proper meaning of amateur is somebody who isn't employed doing said thing. Nowadays the term amateur is used, incorrectly to my mind, for somebody who isn't good at something.

In the past, being a professional is was what was sneered at. There is a good book (I forget the name) about cricketers of the 1800s and how they (very wealthy amateurs, essentially gentry) looked down at the professionals, as it was considered lowly and debasing to the spirit of sport, to play for money.

I imagine this attitude carried over to a lot of things, likely including music. Now the roles are reversed, and it is the amateur that is sneered at.
 
I'm not sure what to say. Let's stick with the Beethoven 2nd Symphony. You use Furtwangler and Gardiner as examples.

OK, first let me say that the Furtwangler is a 'bit much' in my opinion, this is one of those occasions where his tempo variations and such didn't hit the mark. However, I find the Gardiner wrong in the other direction. The first movement is marked Allegro con brio, so Allegro with spirit. I find the performance without spirit. The tempo is a bit robotic, the dynamics of the instruments are missing, all the note lengths are quite similar, it doesn't seem to me a living, breathing thing.

Let me give you a favourite 2nd of mine for comparison, what are you opinions of it:


For me Szell hits the nail on the head. There are small variations in tempo, the dynamics have the proper swing, notes the proper emphasis - it is lively, engaging and musically interesting. Maybe it is not Beethoven as you think it should be, but it is not flat, nor dull.

The question is this, when Beethoven left his scores, was he leaving a puzzle with all the pieces present, that you just assemble and say look at the marvellous work by Beethoven, or was he leaving a puzzle with a few pieces missing, to be, within reason, interpreted depending on the character and taste of the conductor/soloist etc.

Did Beethoven conceive of his pieces as being so perfect that any understanding of them had to be within very strict limits imposed by the HIIP crowd? How can we be sure of this, isn't this possibly a misunderstanding on their part. For example, I find it hard to believe Beethoven would want music played in a way that sounded unnatural and rigid tempi doesn't seem like something from within nature, but something imposed from without.
I'm quite fond of the Szell/Cleveland performance of the second symphony. The tempi are similar to Gardiner's, there is a powerful sense of forward momentum. It's probably the best performance in Szell's Beethoven cycle. With Cleveland's tight ensemble and Szell's attention to Beethoven's quick tempi one could argue that Szell was a precursor to historically informed performances on modern instruments, like Ricardo Chailly and Leipzig, the most successful [to these ears] HIPP on modern instruments:

 
A favorite historically informed performance of Beethoven, the Hanover Band of historic instruments performing Beethoven's decidedly Late Period "Consecration of the House" on original instruments in a performance space of appropriate size, in tempo, featuring some treacherous woodwind action. The older and deaf-er Beethoven got, the more he depended on the built-in structures of fugues and the puzzles and challenges they offered. Handel appears to be the primary inspiration here:

 
In the late 1970s when I was studying classical guitar and was president of the classical guitar society, my wife had a sort of "multi media" lecture series at the St. Louis Art Museum. She got her Master's degree studying Mannerism. She had Art History Lectures and Musice demonstration concerts, featuring local early musicians at the St.Louis Art Museum. The local early musicians from Washington University were very hostile to old music being played on the guitar. One of the musicians was my guitar teacher who was not above taking money to teach guitar, but I already discerned that he hated the guitar , as opposed to the lute. (He really hated Beethoven too) This is very similar to the piano/harpsichord split.

While I do think the comment may have been unfortunate, I do agree that they were vegetarians.

I laughed out loud when I read the comment , comparing Hurwitz to PS. I started out being interested in his channel and then I realized that he constantly confuses his opinion with a fact. I was sort of interested because for decades I have been trying to figure out why most music later than Haydn does't speak to me nearly as often and well as old music.

There is a whole community of meantone fretted instrument which you can watch on YouTube.
 
Last edited:
In the late 1970s when I was studying classical guitar and was president of the classical guitar society, my wife had a sort of "multi media" lecture series at the St. Louis Art Museum. She got her Master's degree studying Mannerism. She had Art History Lectures and Musice demonstration concerts, featuring local early musicians at the St.Louis Art Museum. The local early musicians from Washington University were very hostile to old music being played on the guitar. One of the musicians was my guitar teacher who was not above taking money to teach guitar, but I already discerned that he hated the guitar , as opposed to the lute. (He really hated Beethoven too) This is very similar to the piano/harpsichord split.

While I do think the comment may have been unfortunate, I do agree that they were vegetarians.

I laughed out loud when I read the comment , comparing Hurwitz to PS. I started out being interested in his channel and then I realized that he constantly confuses his opinion with a fact. I was sort of interested because for decades I have been trying to figure out why most music later than Haydn does't speak to me nearly as often and well as old music.

There is a whole community of meantone fretted instrument which you can watch on YouTube.
That was beautiful. It sounds like it was written for lute. Of course this guitar has extra courses . . .

Beethoven loved the guitar, FWIW.
 
I was sort of interested because for decades I have been trying to figure out why most music later than Haydn does't speak to me nearly as often and well as old music.

There is a whole community of meantone fretted instrument which you can watch on YouTube.

That is really heartfelt and beautiful.

I assume I have been, and I am now, chasing my journey in old-early music with exactly the same feeling as you have (please refer to my remote thread on lute and early music).

I also have been thinking about the reasons (and my possible rationales) which unconsciously lead/guide me to the world of old-early music. Now I found your nice post above and @Robin L's this comment (bold and underline given by myself);
Quit at 17 when she had a shot at first chair in a Major League orchestra, thinking of the musical rut she would find herself in.
would fit very well for my long-asking unsolved uncertainty and question.

By the way, it is really interesting (at least for me) that within my about 2,500 LP/CD library, I have very few Beethoven's, as a result of my unconscious preferences.
 
Last edited:
Probably playing a period instrument? ;)

1662834958363.png
 
Guardame las Vacas was written down during the time of the vihuela which had double courses like the lute but looked like a guitar. It was tuned like a renaissance lute.
Yes, I have this CD, Toyohiko Satoh plays vihuela, really beautiful;
WS004183.JPG
 
The aforementioned lutenist guitar teacher studied with Satoh so I was aware of him in the seventies. I have a couple of his cds.
The photograph in St. Louis is at the St. Louis Art Museum , a publicity photo for one of my wifes' lectures.
My wife and I introduced him to his wife.
 
Last edited:
Thank you @gene_stl,

Always very nice talking and discussing with you on early music.

I assume it would be also much worthwhile to share these info regarding vihuela music (especially its tuning method) and your and your wife's wonderful activities in St. Louis on the remote thread "Lute Music and Other Early Music" ; we have many enthusiasts for lute and early music there.
 
These fellows kinda opened my eyes on how period instrument, or "authentic" music may sound. Not "may have sounded", but how can it sound today. I wonder how are they doing now, since their activity kinda died down during the covid crisis...
 
"Period Authenticity" is a marketing gimmick. No one lived then to experience the performances. And it's insulting to the original composers' incredible creativity to claim they would not want to see their work re-interpreted a few centuries later in any new and different way. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy that angle, but why not create beyond it with today's possibilities.

I actually very much enjoy something like Max Richter's Recomposition of Vivaldi's 4 Seasons on the Deutsche Grammophon series (genius!), and Gregson did a mind-blowing, fantastic job with Bach in that series too. And probably my fav recording of Pachelbel's Kanon is Karl Munchinger's with a full orchestra loading up on full strings. Far more powerful than many of the "era authentic" lightweight re-enactment pretense.

It's no different than the modern era, where some classic songs actually seem better or fresher when a great musician puts a new spin on them. And several songs got a new lease on life (and made the original composers $$$) when someone else re-recorded them. Ask Leon Haywood how much he made of "It's a G Thang" by Dre (well you can't he passed, but he did).
 
Last edited:
"Period Authenticity" is a marketing gimmick. No one lived then to experience the performances. And it's insulting to the original composers' incredible creativity to claim they would not want to see their work re-interpreted a few centuries later in any new and different way. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy that angle, but why not create beyond it with today's possibilities.

I actually very much enjoy something like Max Richter's Recomposition of Vivaldi's 4 Seasons on the Deutsche Grammophon series (genius!), and Gregson did a mind-blowing, fantastic job with Bach in that series too. And probably my fav recording of Pachelbel's Kanon is Karl Munchinger's with a full orchestra loading up one all the strings. Far more powerful than many of the "era authentic" lightweight re-enactment pretense.
I'd say that, on the contrary - a marketing gimmick is the mass-produced "classical music" without any labels on it (with overrepresented Romantic era composers).

recordings made for your regular joe who wants the "classical" experience but without all the bells and whistles, concerts for people who wants to socialize and enjoy their drinks in the hall's buffet

authentic recording is a chance to breathe for people who miss the era of "musical rhetoric", abandoned by Classicists for the sake of shits and giggles (I have nothing against a good Haydn quartet though!).

Honestly, your statement is similar to calling the classical rock music "a marketing gimmick", saying that punk and new-wave "far more powerful than many of the rock progressive overly complex snob pretense"
 
I'd say that, on the contrary - a marketing gimmick is the mass-produced "classical music" without any labels on it (with overrepresented Romantic era composers).

recordings made for your regular joe who wants the "classical" experience but without all the bells and whistles, concerts for people who wants to socialize and enjoy their drinks in the hall's buffet

authentic recording is a chance to breathe for people who miss the era of "musical rhetoric", abandoned by Classicists for the sake of shits and giggles (I have nothing against a good Haydn quartet though!).

Honestly, your statement is similar to calling the classical rock music "a marketing gimmick", saying that punk and new-wave "far more powerful than many of the rock progressive overly complex snob pretense"
I think that's a bizarre overstatement. I clearly said there's room for all of it.

But trying to force an "authenticity" no one of these "defenders of truth" ever experienced is fake by definition. No one -still alive- was there to hear any of the premieres of those works, and the composers themselves re-arranged their compositions -and "improved" on the original- regularly for different performances. All classical composers were notorious for their adaptability with re-arrangements. Claiming now things were cast in stone with the first composition is what is actually a complete pretense.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom