Classical Instruments: Historical or Modern?

[PatF]

This is a little bit out of the scope of the thread, but please allow me sharing my own naive considerations on the nature of "vibrato".

"Vibrato" is time-domain variable fluctuations consists of;

1. time-domain flexible/variable period of cycles
2. time-domain flexible/variable slight frequency fluctuations
3. time-domain flexible/variable slight sound-pressure fluctuations
4. mixture of above three with flexible/variable relative intensities

Is my above naive consideration right?
If so, I assume vibrato in violin is "2. frequency fluctuation" dominant, and vibrato in (modern) oboe is "3. sound-pressure fluctuation" dominant, right?
(And again, if so, I would like to ask Heinz Holliger for his "attitude", "policy", "method" and "technique" of vibrato in his modern oboe performances.)

In vibrato of your "sliding-pipe" wind instruments, you may rather easily and flexibly apply "4. mixture of above three", right?

In vocal music, a singer can also flexibly apply vibrato of "4. mixture of above three", I believe.

Even though I believe many of the authorities in music have already discussed and investigated the above, your frank follow-up or comments, as well as links to the related publications, will be appreciated.

Here is lengthy article where vibrato in vocal music is discussed
The Historic Record of Vocal Sound (1650-1829) Richard Bethell

http://www.earlymusic.info/newsletter/NEMA_Newsletter_v_1_2021.pdf

Here is very new Richard Bethell book on topic of vocal music tradition and among other things use of vibrato:

Amazon.com

Another discussion on this topic

The 'Vibrato Wars' and 'The Historic Record of Vocal Sound': A discussion

www.cacophonyhistoricalsinging.com

We need to pay attention especially to vocal music because in practical teaching on all instruments reference to imitate singers and human voice is common and widespread. Of course when more and more specific methods about playing particular instrument were published they discuss specifics of application vibrato on certain instruments but reference to vocal performance is still there

 

[posvibes]

My best recording of Beethoven Symphonies on period instruments is:

Thanks for the recommendation, I will give it a listen.

 

[dualazmak]

....
....
We need to pay attention especially to vocal music because in practical teaching on all instruments reference to imitate singers and human voice is common and widespread. Of course when more and more specific methods about playing particular instrument were published they discuss specifics of application vibrato on certain instruments but reference to vocal performance is still there

Thank for the links and your kind comments.

I will slowly read and learn these publications, and also I would like to find validity of my naive considerations/assumptions.

 

[posvibes]

playing particular instrument were published they discuss specifics of application vibrato on certain instruments but reference to vocal performance is still there

Many, many years ago I saw Harnoncourt on Austrian television playing Spring from Vivaldi with a young Italian camerata ensemble. And he left out vibrato ( I can't remember if it was for all of the instruments and/or if it was throughout the piece). I think he made the point it wasn't the fashion then to use vibrato. What was most astounding was the twitching and twittering of birdsong in spring was beautifully rendered because of not using vibrato on the violins.

 

[Pretorious]

I am a convert to period instrument performances, and almost always prefer recordings of such over modern instruments and interpretations. It was years ago when I was completely blown away when I discovered period performances of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, among many others. I couldn’t believe how much of the cruft of Romantic-era performances was eliminated, and how fresh and wonderful the works sounded. It was all new again.

I went on to study much of the literature of HIP and watch some truly enlightening lectures on YouTube. Ever since I have been a firm admirer of it all. I philosophize about it all in an article I penned, The Importance of Historical Instruments and Period Practice. I am, perhaps, not as strong an adherent as I might come across here; I don’t shun modern instruments, orchestras or performances, and enjoy much of it, too. I just have a passionate adoration for the HIP movement and what it means to me.

The sounds, the colors, the expressions, the ideas, all should be at least experienced by any lover of classical music.

 

[PatF]

I am a convert to period instrument performances, and almost always prefer recordings of such over modern instruments and interpretations. It was years ago when I was completely blown away when I discovered period performances of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, among many others. I couldn’t believe how much of the cruft of Romantic-era performances was eliminated, and how fresh and wonderful the works sounded. It was all new again.

I went on to study much of the literature of HIP and watch some truly enlightening lectures on YouTube. Ever since I have been a firm admirer of it all. I philosophize about it all in an article I penned, The Importance of Historical Instruments and Period Practice. I am, perhaps, not as strong an adherent as I might come across here; I don’t shun modern instruments, orchestras or performances, and enjoy much of it, too. I just have a passionate adoration for the HIP movement and what it means to me.

The sounds, the colors, the expressions, the ideas, all should be at least experienced by any lover of classical music.

Welcome to the topic if you do not know this book I strongly recommend it (title is a bit mischievous):

The End of Early Music: A Period Performer's History of Music for the Twenty-First Century: Haynes, Bruce: 9780195189872: Amazon.com: Books

The End of Early Music: A Period Performer's History of Music for the Twenty-First Century [Haynes, Bruce] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The End of Early Music: A Period Performer's History of Music for the Twenty-First Century

www.amazon.com

 

[Pretorious]

Thanks, @PatF, I do not know that one. Looks very interesting. I've added it to my wish list!

 

[Azazello13]

Wow, this is an interesting thread, very enjoyable. I feel like there are a lot of pretty strong arguments on both sides of this debate, so for me an important thing from the outset is not to become an absolutist about it.

Where I come down personally is I love the period approach and find it superior when it comes to ensemble pieces. If I might introduce a personal anecdote from many years ago. I was familiar with Bach's B minor mass from some modern renderings, like Karajan with Vienna Phil or something along those lines. I came across the famous Harnoncourt period recording, and I can still remember the overwhelming sense of joy and discovery I had listening to it. This was how the music was supposed to sound, and it sounded better. The lush modern orchestral sound was lovely in its own right, but it was anachronistic in a way that somehow made the music less impactful. The instruments on their own might be "better", but they sound different enough that they obscure the whole ensemble palate the composer was trying to create.

I tend to feel differently about many solo pieces, where clearly superior modern instruments often allow for better renditions. Keyboard pieces on modern piano, for instance, just seem to be a lot more interesting. And it's hard to imagine Bach objecting to his Sonatas and Partitas for violin being played on a better instrument than he had around at the time (though it's kind of funny to think that Bach and Stradivari were contemporaries).

In short, I think the period instrument movement is one of the best things to happen to classical music in the late 20th century. It brought pre-Romantic era music to life in a way that created vitality, interest and appreciation.

 

[PatF]

I tend to feel differently about many solo pieces, where clearly superior modern instruments often allow for better renditions.

this is wrong assumption. Instruments in certain period were best possible and on such instruments music was written. There was no composer who wrote on future instruments. What you perceive as superior could be not superior for people in the time when certain work was created. Many times new developments were very slowly adopted and very often at the cost of some unique features.

Of course you can like more old music performed on modern instruments and It is perfectly normal but our perspective is much different, especially in the age of recording. Here is one of the best books in the topic how recordings change our musical taste:

 

[Pretorious]

I tend to feel differently about many solo pieces, where clearly superior modern instruments often allow for better renditions. Keyboard pieces on modern piano, for instance, just seem to be a lot more interesting. And it's hard to imagine Bach objecting to his Sonatas and Partitas for violin being played on a better instrument than he had around at the time (though it's kind of funny to think that Bach and Stradivari were contemporaries).

I agree, in theory. In practice it's much skewed towards performances on period instruments still sounding better and/or more correct to the intentions. The sonatas and partitas are a good example in that the double and triple stopping required are much more difficult to achieve on modern violins due to string tension, bridge shape and other factors. Performers have to find a way around this that usually means an alternating pattern between strings that isn't in the score at all.

For solo piano music it's hard to argue when someone like Ronald Brautigam shows what the speed and clarity of a fortepiano can do in pieces like Beethoven's Appassionata that one can't achieve on a modern piano. Even Haydn's last piano sonata sounds driving and clear when he plays it on a period piano; I've yet to find a modern piano performance where the musical lines are as clear.

I'll never turn down hearing these works on modern instruments, but period instruments I much preferred. They do sound beautiful on both, however. And certainly, if all we have are modern instruments at our disposal we take advantage of that and play the works anew. But we can learn from studying the old instruments and texts, and playing on them in the manner taught by the former masters.

 

[MickeyBoy]

this is wrong assumption. Instruments in certain period were best possible and on such instruments music was written. There was no composer who wrote on future instruments. What you perceive as superior could be not superior for people in the time when certain work was created. Many times new developments were very slowly adopted and very often at the cost of some unique features.

Of course you can like more old music performed on modern instruments and It is perfectly normal but our perspective is much different, especially in the age of recording. Here is one of the best books in the topic how recordings change our musical taste:

View attachment 227829

Three comments: a) these debates about authenticity omit the hears, whose expectations are VERY different from ours. b) musical styles were not national, as European society was more local than ours. Most localities do not have documentation about their practices at a given time. We do know that players used different instruments for the same piece depending on who and what was available. Score absolutism in the manner of Gunther Schuller was likely unknown. c) Instruments varied enormously in the past and to some extent still do. The French were very proud of the advances in their woodwinds 120 years ago. They used them to perform Beethoven and Berlioz. Would anyone think they were wrong?

Robert Philip is a scholar I respect. Thanks for pointing out his book. I'll get it from the university library.

 

[Azazello13]

this is wrong assumption.

Well, like I said at the outset, I don't think it's productive to be an absolutist about this issue. Obviously you feel differently.

Just to dial in a bit and focus my argument, I'm just going to talk about Bach's solo keyboard output. I'd maintain the following:
1) Piano renderings of these works are more interesting, more pleasing to listen to, and more well-regarded critically
2) Piano is objectively a much better instrument than harpsichord
3) This obviously speculation, but I believe if Bach had a pianoforte, he would have written for it. If he came across one later in life, he would have played older keyboard music he composed on it.
4) the benefit of period instruments, which I strongly recognize, is less pronounced in solo or smaller chamber pieces.

The stuff about the limitations of early recordings changing performers' choices and listeners' tastes in the first half of the 20th century is very interesting indeed, but I'm not sure how germane it is to this question. The whole period instrument debate has occurred in the context of much better recording technology starting in the latter few decades of the 20th century.

 

[PatF]

Well, like I said at the outset, I don't think it's productive to be an absolutist about this issue. Obviously you feel differently.

Where you see absolutist approach here ? In my stating that viewing that modern instruments as superior to old one is wrong ?
I am not saying that we should not play old music on modern instruments but looking at old instruments as inferior when using them to play music written for them is ridiculous.

 

[Azazello13]

For solo piano music it's hard to argue when someone like Ronald Brautigam shows what the speed and clarity of a fortepiano can do in pieces like Beethoven's Appassionata that one can't achieve on a modern piano. Even Haydn's last piano sonata sounds driving and clear when he plays it on a period piano; I've yet to find a modern piano performance where the musical lines are as clear.

I can't say I've heard many period instrument renditions of piano pieces from this era. I will have to check some of them out. Thanks for the suggestions.

 

[PatF]

Just to dial in a bit and focus my argument, I'm just going to talk about Bach's solo keyboard output. I'd maintain the following:
1) Piano renderings of these works are more interesting, more pleasing to listen to, and more well-regarded critically
2) Piano is objectively a much better instrument than harpsichord
3) This obviously speculation, but I believe if Bach had a pianoforte, he would have written for it. If he came across one later in life, he would have played older keyboard music he composed on it.
4) the benefit of period instruments, which I strongly recognize, is less pronounced in solo or smaller chamber pieces.

ad1. it is not a fact it is you subjective opinion
ad2. better for what ? there is a lot of situation where substitution of piano instead of harpsichord would ruin performance. Also writing for harpsichord is much different than writing for piano. Ask composer or student of composition to write fugue for piano and for harpsichord ... I had such exercises when I studied musicology and output was much different
ad3. this is utterly wrong ... we can not speculate such thing and first Silberman pianoforte presented to Bach was rejected, second one was better but Bach was not urge to get one. Moreover his son C.Ph.E. Bach having in his disposition few Siblermann pianoforte for dynamic versatility used clavichord which was far superior for him than pianoforte.
ad4. It is also your subjective opinion not a fact

 

[PatF]

Three comments: a) these debates about authenticity omit the hears, whose expectations are VERY different from ours. b) musical styles were not national, as European society was more local than ours. Most localities do not have documentation about their practices at a given time. We do know that players used different instruments for the same piece depending on who and what was available. Score absolutism in the manner of Gunther Schuller was likely unknown. c) Instruments varied enormously in the past and to some extent still do. The French were very proud of the advances in their woodwinds 120 years ago. They used them to perform Beethoven and Berlioz. Would anyone think they were wrong?

Robert Philip is a scholar I respect. Thanks for pointing out his book. I'll get it from the university library.

Everything true but today (if do not consider early music period movement) we have much less differences than in 19th century. In 19th century there were two strong schools of sound: French and Austro-German. It included different construction of woodwind and brass wind instrument and also approach to string section. Itally was also somewhat different and England a bit but with strong influence of French or German concepts.

Also in 19th century old music was not mainstream as today and they performed it and adjusted as they wish. The same way it was done in our times. I also want to say it once more I do not discard any performance of old music on modern instrument and I can listen to such performance with pleasure. I treat them as modern interpretation of the score. Performance on period instrument I treat in much different way. I admit I prefer period instrument performance but it only my subjective choice.

 

[Azazello13]

ad1. it is not a fact it is you subjective opinion
ad2. better for what ? there is a lot of situation where substitution of piano instead of harpsichord would ruin performance. Also writing for harpsichord is much different than writing for piano. Ask composer or student of composition to write fugue for piano and for harpsichord ... I had such exercises when I studied musicology and output was much different
ad3. this is utterly wrong ... we can not speculate such thing and first Silberman pianoforte presented to Bach was rejected, second one was better but Bach was not urge to get one. Moreover his son C.Ph.E. Bach having in his disposition few Siblermann pianoforte for dynamic versatility used clavichord which was far superior for him than pianoforte.
ad4. It is also your subjective opinion not a fact

obviously they are my opinions. that is the whole point. you are welcome to your opinion that harpsichord is superior to modern piano, but I would point out that it is not a widely shared opinion.

arguing with fundamentalists is tedious. have fun with your trumpet that can only play a third of the notes.

 

[PatF]

obviously they are my opinions. that is the whole point. you are welcome to your opinion that harpsichord is superior to modern piano, but I would point out that it is not a widely shared opinion.

arguing with fundamentalists is tedious. have fun with your trumpet that can only play a third of the notes.

OMG .... Where I wrote that harpsichord is superior to modern piano ? Harpsichord is suitable for music which was conceived for it and best option. Of course not only one and of course you as performer can do different thing when playing on modern piano.

Regarding "my" trumpet it has all sound which are needed to play music written for it. We do not need more when performing early music. I could say try to play on modern trumpet in mean-tone temperament and many other things but such discussion is childish.

 

[xaviescacs]

Harpsichord is superior to a modern piano to play Harpsichord pieces Sometimes I wish I had one for certain pieces. Back or Rameau for instance. There are pieces that can sound quite good or even better with a modern piano, but that's because we play them in a different fashion. A very nice example is Scarlatti sonata L. 33 / K 87, which really seems composed for piano, just to sustain notes, rather than the harpsichord. Some other of his sonatas also shine with a modern piano. Perhaps this is due to the fact that he was very focused on harmony and counterpoint, rather than on a precise "sound". On the opposite side, Bach's Brandenburg concertos for instance are unplayable with a modern piano.

 

[dualazmak]

Harpsichord is superior to a modern piano to play Harpsichord pieces Sometimes I wish I had one for certain pieces. Back or Rameau for instance. There are pieces that can sound quite good or even better with a modern piano, but that's because we play them in a different fashion. A very nice example is Scarlatti sonata L. 33 / K 87, which really seems composed for piano, just to sustain notes, rather than the harpsichord. Some other of his sonatas also shine with a modern piano. Perhaps this is due to the fact that he was very focused on harmony and counterpoint, rather than on a precise "sound". On the opposite side, Bach's Brandenburg concertos for instance are unplayable with a modern piano.

So,,, what would be your preference, impression and thoughts on the typical two piano performances of Couperin and Bach which I briefly discussed in my post #84? Let me paste them again here;

I especially like 19:59 Track-10 "La Misterieuse" (highly recommend to buy the CD for amazing recording quality);

We discussed this amazing performance and recording engineering here and thereafter on that remote thread.