• 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?

It's certainly possible. After all, it's been done for over 100 years with notable success. The question is, aren't we missing out on something? In the end, the listener decides, and if "fresh takes" or modernised versions or André Rieu is what people want then they can have it in spades.

But compare these two performances of the same piece, one on harpsichord the other on a Steinway. Now, Alberto Chines really does his best on the piano, but in contrast to Scott Ross' harpsichord it sounds downright dull.


While I agree that Scott Ross has a more powerful performance, the sound quality of the posted link is atrocious. This comes from a studio recording; the sound quality is much better. For what it's worth, I don't think the difference has as much to do with the choice of instrument as the weaker performance of Alberto Chines.

 
Last edited:
...

I think the whole of this "authentic music resentment" has something to do with people who simply aren't interested in early music.

Clearly not the case as far as I am concerned.

But those defenders of "true authenticity" argue with each other endlessly and claim the others got it totally wrong. So if they can't agree with each other, I'll go with what I like, in different variations. To be limited to what is the most "authentic" is to limit oneself artificially. That's my only real point here.

And re-interpreting music can be awesome, it's silly to dismiss it as "un-authentic" unless the new performance sucks.

This...

to me is not in any way superior to this...
 
It already sounds repetitive, in the "mainstream" classical music, exactly in those circles you just mentioned. I don't really understand your point, since 90% of so called "classical" music today is represented by Romantic and post-Romantic era, which cannot be "authentified" any further. And classicists (Mozard and co) are much closer to them than to Baroque.

That is not necessarily true. One will seldom confuse a piece directed by Karajan with the same piece by Bernstein... and the list goes on and on. There are zillions of things directors do to bring their vision of a piece to reality. Otherwise you'd just have to stick a big metronome in front of the orchestra and have the musicians just read notes.

Furthermore, the "purists" that claim their version is the "truest" argue with each other endlessly, claiming others didn't really get it right - that's why I say we don't really ultimately know the undisputed truth. And personally, I don't particularly care as long as what I am listening to touches me.


What exactly are you cautioning against? I really don't quite understand. As consumers, we can only refer to ethemeral "marketing strategies", being unable to discuss the music itself. And quite often there is nothing really to discuss! Music isn't about "talking", if you remember that quote by Zappa. :)

I'd agree the thing is about feeling music for yourself, and wording why something resonates or doesn't resonate with you can range from difficult to downright impossible.
As for my personal preferences, - I pirate all music that I listen to, so I don't really care about "marketing", since I am a parasite on the body of the market.

I am not a fan of that statement.... :-/

...

People with resentment towards authentic movement very often present themselves as some sort of enlightenment apologets: "beware, cause these are charlatans who sell snake oil!". I have never met these charlatans. Could you perhaps give examples of authentic music that is bad, in your opinion?
I never stated anywhere that authentic music is bad. I just said the claim to ultimate authenticity is often disputed among those that claim to dedicate themselves to that formula. That's all.
 
That is not necessarily true. One will seldom confuse a piece directed by Karajan with the same piece by Bernstein... and the list goes on and on. There are zillions of things directors do to bring their vision of a piece to reality. Otherwise you'd just have to stick a big metronome in front of the orchestra and have the musicians just read notes.

Furthermore, the "purists" that claim their version is the "truest" argue with each other endlessly, claiming others didn't really get it right - that's why I say we don't really ultimately know the undisputed truth. And personally, I don't particularly care as long as what I am listening to touches me.




I'd agree the thing is about feeling music for yourself, and wording why something resonates or doesn't resonate with you can range from difficult to downright impossible.


I am not a fan of that statement.... :-/


I never stated anywhere that authentic music is bad. I just said the claim to ultimate authenticity is often disputed among those that claim to dedicate themselves to that formula. That's all.
I've seldom found myself in strong agreement with your musical opinions, but here I believe you are close to truth: we just plain don't know about things which weren't explicitly marked by the composer. Even then, our knowledge is limited by our ignorance of what exactly the composer intended by an explicit marking and, possibly more importantly, what expressions or affections he wished to exclude. For example, terraced dynamics are a generally conceded effect (or compositional technique) in baroque music, but their conventional (or marked) presence in a score does not exclude linear dynamics expressions (e.g., messa di voce) or implied, more subtle dynamic expressions, resulting from typical or (style appropriate) bowing practices. That's just dynamics, finding temporal "truth" is an even more thorny proposition. As to timbre, we're probably getting pretty close, though a lot of the HIP vocalists I've heard couldn't carry Farinelli's jock.o_O

HIP may eventually become hip (it's getting closer), but, if the noise on the CD is about as intellectually and emotionally engaging as a midi file run through a respectable sampler, I'll pass.

Speaking of unhip, I'll also pass on contemporary opera divas trying to do popular music. I rather listen to Michael Boulton singing Verdi. (I haven't made a final judgment on Peter Hoffman in either genre.)
 
Speaking of unhip, I'll also pass on contemporary opera divas trying to do popular music. I rather listen to Michael Boulton singing Verdi. (I haven't made a final judgment on Peter Hoffman in either genre.)
Unlikely as it would seem, I've heard Bolton's arias and Hoffman's pop. While it would be easy to say Bolton's no Gigli and Hoffman no Meatloaf, to me they both sound committed and sincere. I can hear why others might not like them!
 
we just plain don't know about things which weren't explicitly marked by the composer. Even then, our knowledge is limited by our ignorance of what exactly the composer intended by an explicit marking and, possibly more importantly, what expressions or affections he wished to exclude.

On the contrary, we have a wealth of information from original sources (treatises on performance) and the sound of old instruments. Performers simply need to stop ignoring it. The notion of "authentic" sound is silly and made up by opponents of historically informed performance practice, as a straw man to attack. What we can do instead is uncover meaning and clues in old scores that have been lost after centuries of heaping patina upon them. It's not a religion or a dogma, it's a process of learning and research and getting closer to the original impact and expression of old music.

The reading of musical notation has changed over time, old scores shouldn't be read through the lens of modern notation, lest the meaning of the composition be obscured. This famous lecture by Malcom Bilson at Cornell University (~1.5h) explains this well with many examples, it even includes a tangent on the suitability of modern pianos for playing old music:

 
On the contrary, we have a wealth of information from original sources (treatises on performance) and the sound of old instruments. Performers simply need to stop ignoring it. The notion of "authentic" sound is silly and made up by opponents of historically informed performance practice, as a straw man to attack.
Not a fan of Ray Bolger, I eschew straw men of any sort. You are, of course, welcome (even encouraged) to have an opinion as I will continue to have mine.

I cut my teeth on the 3 Ds (Dart, Dolmetch, and Donington) and spent untold undergrad hours crawling through historical sets with little to guide me but a flashlight and Harriet Heyer. I came away from this experience with a profound respect for what I did not and never would be able to know. Performing with the likes of Norrington and Rilling helped me stay modest. As intriguing as their ideas were at the moment, they hardly survived till I encountered the next visionary. I have little interest in revisiting those rabbit holes. (What's up, DMA!;))

I'll concede (again) we're pretty close to understanding historical timbres (with the noted exceptions) and possibly tuning, but the other two relevant parameters (time and dynamic) are open to far too much debate for me to be as convinced as you seem to be.

A few observations about musical treatises. They come in two principle varieties*. 1) Contemporary treatises, which have little (positive or probative) value, a century or so down the road. 2) Treatises written a century or two down the road by people who didn't know the actual combatants. Probably their greatest defect is that they are usually written by musicologists, that protected subset of the musical world, routinely shunned by performers.


Edit; * I probably should have said "flavors," implying something which might be swallowed.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, we have a wealth of information from original sources (treatises on performance) and the sound of old instruments. Performers simply need to stop ignoring it. The notion of "authentic" sound is silly and made up by opponents of historically informed performance practice, as a straw man to attack. ...

We -for sure not me- are not attacking at all. When I say I am not particularly interested in establishing who truly is "the most authentic" it is for 2 reasons... (a) I don't have the background to ascertain who's right and who's wrong, especially because (b) the experts on authenticity also keep battling each other. I will have to look for the CD booklet, but it was one of those forgotten baroque masterpiece collections where they claimed they repaired instruments using the resin of some Mediterranean region to make the original glue and such obscure things (Never my favorite, seemed kinda flat to me, as is sadly often the case with audiophile recordings that primarily advertise themselves as such). Also reminded me about the endless debates about restoring old paintings... one must mix the colors from scratch just like Michelangelo or others did themselves (they didn't go the Michael's and buy oil paint tubes back then :-D), alas they passionately disagree as to what the process was, and Michelangelo actually left scant information behind, as such things were craftsmen secrets back then that were important for differentiation (a great book is "Michelangelo and the Pope's ceiling", which quotes contemporaries saying Michelangelo mixed his blue better than anyone). Craftsmanship has always been like that. If you know of a 1,000 page treatise that Stradivarius left behind documenting the exact process and materials, by all means let us know. :) Top craftspeople very seldom (arguably never) share *all* their secrets.

PS: I find the obituary of Raymond Leppard in the NYT fits in this discussion. No one can doubt he was very important in Baroque revival, and then he was attacked, and his answer was: ".. “The moment people aspire to the condition of the Virgin Mary, they are sunk in music!” he once said. The originalist approach, he said, was “a wretched, inadequate view of what authenticity is.” In his book “Authenticity in Music” (1988), he called it a “blinkered, faddish pursuit.” .." ".. His job, Mr. Leppard believed, was to do whatever it took to bring a work alive, theatrically and musically, by understanding the cultural world in which it was created, and to convey the composer’s intent. “No halfhearted attempt hampered by academic restraint will do: Performing these works again is like a love affair,” he wrote in the liner notes to a recording of “Calisto.” .."
 
Last edited:
A few observations about musical treatises. They come in two principle varieties*. 1) Contemporary treatises, which have little (positive or probative) value, a century or so down the road. 2) Treatises written a century or two down the road by people who didn't know the actual combatants.

By contemporary, do you mean contemporary to the composer or to today's performer? I'm specifically referring to treatises by the likes of L Mozart, CPE Bach or JJ Quantz. How can they not be highly relevant to the performance of music of the era?
 
By contemporary, do you mean contemporary to the composer or to today's performer? I'm specifically referring to treatises by the likes of L Mozart, CPE Bach or JJ Quantz. How can they not be highly relevant to the performance of music of the era?
Relevant: yes, determinative: often doubtful. Leopold's relationship to his son is at best suspect. Similarly CPE, who really represents the degenerate successor to the high baroque. And how much do we really know via Quantz? It's kind of like asking lounge pianists to explain jazz. Some can and some can't, and it's almost impossible to tell the cans from the can'ts. As I said,I exited that rabbit hole nearly half a century ago and am not that interested in visiting again.
 
Last edited:
Relevant: yes, determinative: often doubtful.
Not sure what to make of this rhetorical contradiction, It's about uncovering pieces of lost information, and applying them to performance practice.

Leopold's relationship to his son is at best suspect. Similarly CPE, who really represents the degenerate successor to the high baroque. And how much do we really know via Quantz. It's kind of like asking lounge pianists to explain jazz.

You can slander them all you like, the fact remains that they are original sources of information on how musical scores were read and performed back in those days. This information is of course never complete and can sometimes contain conflicting views on certain details. But even that is valuable historical insight.

One can take this information into account when reading and performing old scores. It helps to flesh out the context in which the score was originally notated. One can also ignore it and perform them based on an overlay of centuries' worth of changing habits, fashions and mannerisms. You can guess which way I prefer performers to go.

The instrument sound (historical vs modern) is only a part of it, of course, and the actual impact depends on the type of instrument. It seems that people who devote their efforts to historically informed performance practice often find that using period instruments furthers their goal the most. But let's not forget that there are good historically informed performances done on modern instruments, too (Mackerras, Harnoncourt et al). There don't seem to be any "historically ignorant performance" recordings on period instruments, though.
 
Not sure what to make of this rhetorical contradiction, It's about uncovering pieces of lost information, and applying them to performance practice.
You asked if "something" couldn't be relevant to the performance of music of a particular era. I answered and will now try to be more clear, While the "something" might be relevant, it might not be determinative, i.e., all that useful (or sufficient) for determining "authentic" performance practice.

I slander no one, but I don't see any of the folks you cite as delivering unassailable truth. They are a few of many (often) conflicting sources, not all of which can be consistently reconciled to the actual music. I'm a believer that performance is the best arbiter and the superior source of insight, and I'm not sure the somewhat proscriptive environment of today's HIP movement is conducive to that discovery.

As an example: Developing the skills to realize (at sight) 4-part chorales (with proper voice leading) from just melody and figured bass, will give you an appreciation of common practice harmony superior to any you might derive from just reading a treatise.

That's it. My eyes are getting tired.
 
Last edited:
Relevant: yes, determinative: often doubtful. Leopold's relationship to his son is at best suspect. Similarly CPE, who really represents the degenerate successor to the high baroque. And how much do we really know via Quantz. It's kind of like asking lounge pianists to explain jazz. Some can and some can't, and it's almost impossible to tell the cans from the can'ts. As I said,I exited that rabbit hole nearly half a century ago and am not that interested in visiting again.
No, the degenerate successor to the high Baroque is, obviously, P.D.Q. Bach. Now, there's a musicalologist [sic] worth noting.

Rick "sorry, just had to inject a bit of non-seriousness in this too-serious topic" Denney
 
...There don't seem to be any "historically ignorant performance" recordings on period instruments, though.
No, but there surely are some banal performances on period instruments. This is where Pabloie and I agree most strongly: It's an exception to the rule when being performed on period instruments with historically informed performance results in musical expression with more lasting value than a mere curiosity. And the more the "historically performed" aspect dominates the descriptions and packaging, the worse it's likely to be.

It's fun in some dimensions, simply because all research and learning is fun. But it's not necessarily the listener who benefits. With notable exceptions (whose exceptional notoriety demonstrates the point), the performers who craft real technique on period instruments are likely to be academics more than working full-time professional musicians. Again, note the granted exceptions. But the period-instrument ensemble in any given town isn't likely to have musicians of the caliber of the professional orchestra in that town, even if there is some shared personnel. Even though the musicians in Hogwood's ensemble, for example, are (I'm sure) drawn from the same pool as the other professional orchestras in London, "The Academy of Ancient Music" is a side hustle for most of them, I'd bet. They'd be highly skilled on any instrument, but I'll bet the bulk of their practice and training is using their modern instrument. And the inspiration of the conductor in front of them is similarly not necessarily drawn from the same pool of brilliance. Historically informed music still has to stand on its own as music, no matter what the instruments and performance practice.

While Norrington's star has apparently faded, there were two features of his music that meant more than the instruments used when performing Beethoven: His tempi and his articulation. He followed, wherever possible, the metronome markings (presumably) added by Beethoven. Yes, there is controversy there, but his assumption was to start with those and see where it led. Beethoven's markings went a lot faster than the better-known (i.e., more widely recorded) modern conductors were likely to observe. But even more importantly to my ears, Norrington observed the articulation markings with far more vigor and punctuation than did other modern conductors. (Toscanini excepted to some extent.)

I have been largely content with my classical library for many years, so all my examples are decades old. That's why I bring up Norrington (with Hogwood as the much more widely recorded example confirming my bias), though I could just as easily have brought up Harnoncourt or Trevor Pinnock, who both also managed to put the musicality of the expression first.

Robin has real experience working with groups not of the caliber (perhaps) or fame of the orchestras used by Norrington, Harnoncourt, or Pinnock, so I wonder if his observations match my own.

I've heard some truly superb performances on period instruments, but they always get the "especially considering" qualifier. For example, I heard David Bragunier (RIP), the now-passed tuba player for the National Symphony, perform the Richard Strauss Horn Concerto No. 1 on a turn-of-the-last-century Kruspe Eb tuba. So, we are already on dangerous ground here--a horn concerto being performed on a tuba, an octave down. But that is exactly the sort thing that would have been pretty common back in the 19th Century when solo performers had to show off to audiences just as they do now. He used that Kruspe Eb tuba simply because it was cool to use an instrument from within a couple of decades of when that work was composed, made by a maker whose reputation was strongest in making (French) horns. He was accompanied by the U.S. Army Orchestra, which is certainly a competent ensemble of professional musicians (on modern instruments, of course). The performance was impressive, "especially considering" how hard he was having to work to manage the wonky intonation characteristics of that instrument. Arnold Jacobs made at least as credible a performance, in musical terms, using his enormous York C contrabass tuba at a band camp in Colorado 60-odd years ago. At least he was using the instrument he was most familiar with. Would David have come closer to the fluidity of a modern hornist using his regular modern Eb or F bass tuba? I'd bet a medium-sized Chinese feast that he would have.

(I also heard a performance of what I recall was the Telemann horn concerto performed on natural horn with the Washington Bach Consort at the National Presbyterian Church in Washington maybe a decade back. I suspect the performer was Brad Tatum, and I do recall that the performance was superb, "especially considering" it was performed on a natural horn with a large key-adjustment loop and maybe even a couple of tone holes. Brad Tatum is one of the foremost natural hornists on the planet, but I'd love to have heard him perform the work on a modern horn just for the comparison.)

Which brings me to a point I did not make earlier: Period instruments are more challenging to play well. The standards of sound, projection, and (especially) intonation have improved dramatically over the decades, irrespective of the differences in tone. A professional tuba player (U.S. Army Band career) friend of mine had a side hustle of putting together a quintet of (professional) brass players who were using 19th-Century instruments. His comment: "The first thing you have to give up is the modern notion of good intonation." (He said the same thing about playing in amateur bands after he retired, when he found himself sitting next to people like me.)

We have to remember that listeners are listening with modern ears, ears trained by example to expect modern performance technique. I'm sure I've told the story in this thread: I once played with the Heritage Brass in Dallas, a group that performed at Civil War re-enactments. There was a push to borrow some period instruments from Hill College. I advised against it. I don't think people had any idea how bad military bands of the Civil War were, but the people we were playing for would be listening to us with Canadian Brass ears.

Rick "probably said all this before, too" Denney
 
Last edited:
No, but there surely are some banal performances on period instruments. This is where Pabloie and I agree most strongly: It's an exception to the rule when being performed on period instruments with historically informed performance results in musical expression with more lasting value than a mere curiosity. And the more the "historically performed" aspect dominates the descriptions and packaging, the worse it's likely to be.

It's fun in some dimensions, simply because all research and learning is fun. But it's not necessarily the listener who benefits. With notable exceptions (whose exceptional notoriety demonstrates the point), the performers who craft real technique on period instruments are likely to be academics more than working full-time professional musicians. Again, note the granted exceptions. But the period-instrument ensemble in any given town isn't likely to have musicians of the caliber of the professional orchestra in that town, even if there is some shared personnel. Even though the musicians in Hogwood's ensemble, for example, are (I'm sure) drawn from the same pool as the other professional orchestras in London, "The Academy of Ancient Music" is a side hustle for most of them, I'd bet. They'd be highly skilled on any instrument, but I'll bet the bulk of their practice and training is using their modern instrument. And the inspiration of the conductor in front of them is similarly not necessarily drawn from the same pool of brilliance. Historically informed music still has to stand on its own as music, no matter what the instruments and performance practice.

While Norrington's star has apparently faded, there were two features of his music that meant more than the instruments used when performing Beethoven: His tempi and his articulation. He followed, wherever possible, the metronome markings (presumably) added by Beethoven. Yes, there is controversy there, but his assumption was to start with those and see where it led. Beethoven's markings went a lot faster than the better-known (i.e., more widely recorded) modern conductors were likely to observe. But even more importantly to my ears, Norrington observed the articulation markings with far more vigor and punctuation than did other modern conductors. (Toscanini excepted to some extent.)

I have been largely content with my classical library for many years, so all my examples are decades old. That's why I bring up Norrington (with Hogwood as the much more widely recorded example confirming my bias), though I could just as easily have brought up Harnoncourt or Trevor Pinnock, who both also managed to put the musicality of the expression first.

Robin has real experience working with groups not of the caliber (perhaps) or fame of the orchestras used by Norrington, Harnoncourt, or Pinnock, so I wonder if his observations match my own.

I've heard some truly superb performances on period instruments, but they always get the "especially considering" qualifier. For example, I heard David Bragunier (RIP), the now-passed tuba player for the National Symphony, perform the Richard Strauss Horn Concerto No. 1 on a turn-of-the-last-century Kruspe Eb tuba. So, we are already on dangerous ground here--a horn concerto being performed on a tuba, an octave down. But that is exactly the sort thing that would have been pretty common back in the 19th Century when solo performers had to show off to audiences just as they do now. He used that Kruspe Eb tuba simply because it was cool to use an instrument from within a couple of decades of when that work was composed, made by a maker whose reputation was strongest in making (French) horns. He was accompanied by the U.S. Army Orchestra, which is certainly a competent ensemble of professional musicians (on modern instruments, of course). The performance was impressive, "especially considering" how hard he was having to work to manage the wonky intonation characteristics of that instrument. Arnold Jacobs made at least as credible a performance, in musical terms, using his enormous York C contrabass tuba at a band camp in Colorado 60-odd years ago. At least he was using the instrument he was most familiar with. Would David have come closer to the fluidity of a modern hornist using his regular modern Eb or F bass tuba? I'd bet a medium-sized Chinese feast that he would have.

(I also heard a performance of what I recall was the Telemann horn concerto performed on natural horn with the Washington Bach Consort at the National Presbyterian Church in Washington maybe a decade back. I suspect the performer was Brad Tatum, and I do recall that the performance was superb, "especially considering" it was performed on a natural horn with a large key-adjustment loop and maybe even a couple of tone holes. Brad Tatum is one of the foremost natural hornists on the planet, but I'd love to have heard him perform the work on a modern horn just for the comparison.)

Which brings me to a point I did not make earlier: Period instruments are more challenging to play well. The standards of sound, projection, and (especially) intonation have improved dramatically over the decades, irrespective of the differences in tone. A professional tuba player (U.S. Army Band career) friend of mine had a side hustle of putting together a quintet of (professional) brass players who were using 19th-Century instruments. His comment: "The first thing you have to give up is the modern notion of good intonation." (He said the same thing about playing in amateur bands after he retired, when he found himself sitting next to people like me.)

We have to remember that listeners are listening with modern ears, ears trained by example to expect modern performance technique. I'm sure I've told the story in this thread: I once played with the Heritage Brass in Dallas, a group that performed at Civil War re-enactments. There was a push to borrow some period instruments from Hill College. I advised against it. I don't think people had any idea how bad military bands of the Civil War were, but the people we were playing for would be listening to us with Canadian Brass ears.

Rick "probably said all this before, too" Denney

You make a ton of good sense. Historical context applies to the players, not just to the instruments or to the audience. How many HIP players marched in Suzuki classes playing Twinkle Twinkle on their 1/4 size viols or gamba. They didn't start their musical training on period instruments and I believe it's difficult, if not impossible, to erase or over-write the neural conditioning of early exposures. How well you play a given "music" depends heavily on how early in your life you experienced it.

The same is truly for technical competence. Trained initially as an organist, dynamics were always terraced, except when they were "swelled" by my right foot. Learning the piano, tuba, and eventually becoming a singer disabused me of the notion. (While listening to music, I still try to control the dynamics with my right foot.)

You might hear some of this if you compared recent recording of 20th century music by orchestras with relatively young personnel vs 40 year old recordings from "mature" orchestras. I'll make it easier, still. Compare the Bergen/Litton Rite of Spring with the BSO/Monteux recording of the same work. The BSO has been (and still is) one of the greatest symphony orchestras in the world, yet (IMO) the accuracy and intensity of their playing doesn't come close to the Bergen Phil's. I love both recordings, but BSO sounds like it's working way too hard for what it's getting. The Bergen Phil's playing, on the other hand, is clean, gestural, and "sweaty" only when appropriate. The result is musically transparent. In fairness, the players in Bergen grew up with the Rite of Spring, whereas Monteux conducted its first performance. Monteux's context could easily have been "what the hell?" Litton's might be, what are we going to do with it this time? Who's better positioned to put the piece in its most "authentic" context?
 
Robin has real experience working with groups not of the caliber (perhaps) or fame of the orchestras used by Norrington, Harnoncourt, or Pinnock, so I wonder if his observations match my own.
Robin had real experience working with performers of the caliber of those in Norrington's, Pinnock's or Harnoncourt's bands. The pool of performers in the San Francisco Bay Area included many who would fly over to London and perform with the aforementioned groups, some to the Netherlands and other European centers of Early Music. Say what you will, but the Philharmonia Baroque (said orchestra containing many performers who went overseas for various gigs) is a world-class ensemble and makes first-rate recordings. Mind you, Nick McGeghan and the Philharmonia Baroque mostly stayed within their wheelhouse, primarily Baroque, with a very strong emphasis on Handel's Operas and Oratorios. While I never recorded the Philharmonia Baroque, I recorded many of the members of that ensemble in other configurations - a lot of their members would perform in an ad hoc orchestra for the San Francisco Bach Choir, some in string quartets, some in other configurations. Let's face it - a gig's a gig. I also recorded performances by the Berkeley Symphony Orchestra under the direction of Kent Nagano, an ensemble that had many performers who also performed with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. I can assure you that they could have more than their fair share of "clams".

Norrington got his reputation based on his recording of Beethoven's 8th and 2nd symphonies. The tempi were notably fast, though Rene Lebowitz played Beethoven at similar tempi many years before, doubtless for similar reasons. The rest of Norrington's Beethoven cycle was rush recorded and released so that the set would be available in time for Christmas. The results were predictably a mess. I was listening to everything via Stax "Earspeakers" at the time, a useful tool for editing recordings. Some of Norrington's recordings were obviously edited with a Cuisinart. If Norrington's star has descended, it's his own fault. His approach is too rigid and all-purpose to produce good musical results. And Hogwood was always a boring conductor.

I think most "historically informed performances" of Beethoven on "original instruments" fail, mainly because the ongoing tradition of the performance of Beethoven's music got folded (successfully) into Romantic traditions of musical performance. Also, one can sense that Beethoven always wanted it louder. That is, if one listens to all of his piano sonatas and string quartets and extrapolates the difference between that music and the music that came before, one can hear a quantum leap in dynamics. Maybe, just maybe, this has something to do with Beethoven becoming quite deaf quite early in his musical career. Also, maybe, it has something to do with the presence and evolution of the piano.

Continuing, Pinnock always was a fine Baroque conductor and has only gotten better over time. Harnoncourt revealed his stripes before he died as a red-blooded romantic conductor, one of the finest modern Beethoven and Bruckner conductors. His recording of Bruckner's 9th with the Vienna Philharmonic is my favorite modern recording.

When I was working at The Musical Offering, which closed last December, alas, Joseph Spencer (then director of the San Francisco Early Music Society as well as being the manager of the M.O.) and Robert Cole of Cal Performances created a Biannual Early Music Festival, drawing many of the best-known performers in the realm of Early Music from all over the world. I managed to record a number of the concerts at those festivals. At one I was lucky enough to record a solo recital by violist Jordi Savall. Jordi Savall managed to unearth the music of such composers as Marin Marias, music that really doesn't make sense on any instrument but the viol de gamba. And there's no questioning his musicality. Savall is to the viol as Casals was to the cello.

I don't think we have to preface performances of the harpsichord with "considering" anymore, it's now esteemed in much higher regard than back when Wanda Landowska made horrible sounds bashing away on the Pleyel. This is but the most obvious example of the modern evolution of an antique instrument returning to the mainstream of musical activity. The Basset Clarinet is an instrument I've heard (and recorded) that has reached a level of "playability" making its use in appropriate settings more than a "curiosity". I think that performances of Baroque music really belong on period instruments, the timbres and textures simply make more sense on those instruments played in that fashion. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of Karl Münchinger and Jean-François Paillard.
 
Last edited:
Norrington got his reputation based on his recording of Beethoven's 8th and 2nd symphonies. The tempi were notably fast, though Rene Lebowitz played Beethoven at similar tempi many years before, doubtless for similar reasons. The rest of Norrington's Beethoven cycle was rush recorded and released so that the set would be available in time for Christmas. The results were predictably a mess. I was listening to everything via Stax "Earspeakers" at the time, a useful tool for editing recordings. Some of Norrington's recordings were obviously edited with a Cuisinart. If Norrington's star has descended, it's his own fault. His approach is too rigid and all-purpose to produce good musical results. And Hogwood was always a boring conductor.
Thanks for sharing! I always wondered about the drop-off in Norrington's Beethoven quality after enjoying the 2nd and 8th Symphonies disc.

Beethoven's metronome marks have been a challenge. Even conductors reputed to have followed them, such as Toscanini, didn't do so universally. A relatively recent recorded set that comes as close as we're likely to get with a modern orchestra is Chailly's with the Concertgebouw.
 
I just stumbled on this thread and really enjoyed it. Because I'm kind of a moldy fig about classical music, nothing after 1825 or so for me, I've listened to a lot of HIP recordings. I think it's a great idea to try to recreate what people were likely to have heard in a performance at the time the music was written. OTOH, modern instruments and modern performance practice aren't necessarily bad for the oldies.

In the vein of other music and HIP, I love pre-WWII blues. We have a lot of recorded examples, some of which are in decent shape. Most of the recordings from the 1920s were played on what we'd call parlor guitars. They have a different sound from the larger acoustics most players favor today. The parlor guitar has a thinner sound than a modern dreadnaught or OM. It has weaker bass. It can't get as loud. Vibrato was an important part of slide playing but almost absent from playing without a slide with the exception of Lonnie Johnson and Josh White. The flat pick was rare. There's a parlor guitar renaissance these days. A lot of people are playing O size and smaller guitars. I like hearing my acoustic blues favorites played on old and modern instruments. I think vibrato on a modern guitar can work well on some songs from the 1920s.

Then there's vocal. The 1920s recordings don't have the melisma and ornamentation of modern vocals. Rubato wasn't used often. Vibrato was restrained. A lot of people who've only heard the post-WWII blues find the old school vocals colorless and lacking in emotion.

I think the lesson here is that performance practice changes over time. For me there are aspects of modern and pre-WWII performance that are equally enjoyable regardless of the difference in approach. I think this applies to classical music as well. Personal preference is also a factor. I like the level of vibrato in Baroque and Early Music vocals better than modern singing. It's not because I think it's objectively better. I just like it more.
 
Thanks for sharing! I always wondered about the drop-off in Norrington's Beethoven quality after enjoying the 2nd and 8th Symphonies disc.

Beethoven's metronome marks have been a challenge. Even conductors reputed to have followed them, such as Toscanini, didn't do so universally. A relatively recent recorded set that comes as close as we're likely to get with a modern orchestra is Chailly's with the Concertgebouw.
Chailly's set is great but it's with the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra.
 
Back
Top Bottom