Printer-friendly version

PERIOD PERFORMANCE – KNOWN AS HIPP - Have you a view?

May 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Why is it that I have a certain dislike, maybe almost a disdain for Historically Informed Performance Practice? Before it became gradually mainstream from the 1970’s I never even thought about it.

But now we are assailed by recordings of this performance style on radio and TV - and even some “normal” performers are being “polluted” by some of its techniques. We can’t seem to escape from the fact that it is pervading our lives.
So what is it that I do not like?

Listening to HIPP makes me feel depressed because it is usually a very dead, and in my opinion I hasten to add, miserable sound, and it kind of levels off the dynamics. Also the phrasing, especially in slow music leads to surges and pear shaped notes from string players (is this the influence of the period bow?) The sound, with its lack of vibrato – or very sparing vibrato – is very dead. It does work in very fast music – but it often requires the boosted sound of the recording media, and in real life live scenarios it often then fails due to lack of any punch.

I had better not mention the situation where the performers’ intonation is often rather approximate.

The non use of vibrato in the right place and for the right reasons is of course not new, and groups like the old Borodin String Quartet used it effectively in the Shostakovich recordings in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It was used as a means of contrast for certain fairly short sections of the great string quartets of Shostakovich and others.

Do feel free to disagree with my opinions – but if I felt that there were any worthwhile ideas to be gained from HIPP then I would be only too keen to benefit. Perhaps one area where we can usefully be influenced by HIP performances is in the use of short notes – as long as not taken to ridiculous extremes.

Can anyone point to areas of HIPP that may make me feel a bit more positive towards it?

Tweet

Now I have a live-and-let-live attitude toward it. I don't avidly seek it out and have no ambitions to take up baroque violin or baroque bows, but I can now listen to HIPP without feeling disdain or prejudice. As long as my friends and I can hold on to our modern instruments and bows and tune to A-440, I have no problem with HIPP players.

Still, my first choice, for sound, is that of modern instruments, since I grew up with them. The real stumbling-block for me in HIPP is baroque tuning -- largely because I grew up on A-440 and have so-called perfect pitch. From what I've read, tuning was actually quite erratic in the baroque period itself -- not always the A-415 that many of today's HIPP groups have settled on.

From researching v.com, I find that a fair number of today's baroque players do, in fact, tune to A-440. One roadblock to this is having a period piano in the ensemble. You can't tune it to 440; the strings would break.

When I listen to an A-415 group, what helps me is simply to think of the piece as having been transposed down a half-step; e.g., a piece I know in F now plays in E. I can live with that. What I find harder to deal with is a tuning somewhere between 415 and 440. Then, to me, it's too low for the key of F but still too high for E.

I know -- players with perfect pitch can be a pain sometimes -- although players with indiscriminate pitch must be even harder to have around.

I have also performed baroque violin on From the Top, and my violin teacher is a baroque violinist as one of her main professions, and I can tell you that there is nothing "approximate" about the study nor the execution, and that the artistic standards are just as high.

But sorry for the pollution.

I hope I can be of some help to turn you onto HIPP, as you call it. It seems you're mostly talking about baroque HIPP (as opposed to classical HIPP or renaissance HIPP, etc.).

First, let me respond to some of your points--

level dynamics/lacking punch: It's true that baroque players have a smaller dynamic range than modern players simply because of the lower tension of the strings and the period bow. But you must remember, music back then wasn't played by a single soloist in huge halls. Even concert music was played in a chamber venue. A good baroque player still has a wonderful warm sound in close quarters, whereas most good modern players either don't sound as warm or sound too harsh.

intonation: Modern players use what amounts to a modified mean-tone system with just intonation where possible. This is what most people are used to and what sounds good to the ear. However, we know that way back when, quarter-comma mean-tone was the tuning du jour. It goes out of its way to make thirds pure, but compromises fifths in the process. For a string instrument tuned in fifths, that means your open strings aren't purely in tune with one another. Of course, a good baroque violinist works around this as necessary.

With those things said, I have to admit I've heard a -lot- of badly played baroque music. Perhaps you have too, which might explain your stance. A lot of "baroque" players are actually modern players who try to moonlight as baroque players without realizing everything is totally different, including the physical mechanics. A necessity for an outstanding baroque performance is an outstanding continuo player. Unfortunately, outstanding baroque cellists who imbue the music with energy and pulse are quite rare.

My suggestion is not to fault HIPP for not having modern sensibilities that our ears are attuned to. Try to go in expecting things to sound differently. Secondly, if it sounds poorly played, it probably is. That's no more a reflection on HIPP than hearing a crappy modern amateur sound bad is to modern performance practices.

So what is great about HIPP? (When played well) The sound is warmer and there's a much greater variation in bow articulations which simply cannot be performed on a modern bow. In theory, the smaller groups play much more together. The music ends up feeling intimate like modern performance string quartets.

Perhaps you would be amused to know that many HIPP players are equally bothered by "normal" players (as you call them) who dabble in HIPP techniques. Even great "normal" players end up butchering it and inadvertantly turning people off to HIPP.

Here are some youtubes of excellent violin oriented baroque HIPP that I hope you can appreciate:

Uccellini Bergamasca:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQywhloSBlE

Matteis Diversi bizzarie sopra la vecchia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkfQ-eSTNOU

Cheers.

-Stanley Ritchie

I'm pleased that this is not turning into a war - those for against those against.

Let me say what I should have said, and that is I may have over-exagerated the "not so good" players. I have of course heard some very good HIPP players but they are very much in the minority. Over say twenty years maybe I've heard half a dozen.

Now for the disagreeing bit of my reply! I'm afraid I do not count Andrew Manze as a very good example of HIP performance. I find his technique lacking - his sound poor - his intonation bad - and well, generally his musicianship leaves me cold.

Rachael Podger is better in my opinion, although once again I find her a bit precious.

Personally I don't in general find such performances as we hear to be warmer than modern playing. The sound is at times, and I say it with some hesitation, slightly more transparent, but also at times spikier than modern. That's probably no bad thing. I suppose it comes down to personal taste and preferences.

I'm not totally a Philistine, as I do have a Baroque recording of a Handel opera which I quite like, although I haven't listened to it for a long time.

I have to admit that I don't know much about the differences between Classical, Baroque, and other styles.

I do believe that there are some very good Baroque (or early music, HIPP, whatever) players out there, it's just that they are very, very small in number. I would also agree that there are some pretty bad players who were bad on modern instruments and who are probably even worse on old instruments. I remember about 30 years ago some pretty tacky orchstral players joining the HIPP bandwaggon simply because they might get more work!

The second group Palladians/The Palladian Ensemble were much more to my taste, and the playing was OK. I found the music a bit repetitive and maybe stuck in a groove, but lots of later music suffers in this way too. Not bad, but would I still go out and buy it, or go to a concert? I’m not sure.

Maybe the whole concept of the performance style and the sound generally is not to my taste. I don't on the whole object to HIPP singers as they seem to be not far removed from modern singers, certainly in the lieder style even if a little more so from some of the "over the top" operatic performers.

Yes, I really agree with you there!!

Some of the discs put out by Jordi Savalle (viola da gamba) are stunning and beautiful. The Purcell Fantasias come to mind. Amazing pieces.

Someone mentioned the violinist Guiliano Carmignola. If Manze isn't to your taste, check him out. A great imagination, and a real poet. He studied with Szerying.

Aside from soloists, some of the ensemble work of period groups is thrilling. If you haven't, check out anything by Herreweghe - but especially Bach (the B minor mass, St. Matthew passion, etc.)

The phrasing, unanimity of sound and style is wonderful. The choir is out of sight.

David

Admittedly we can only attempt to recreate older music in, say, the Baroque style, from our own contemporary position, with modern ears, and unfortunately there is no way to go back in time to verify the results. To attempt it with integrity requires considerable discipline and scholarship as well as imagination and musical talent, but it seems to me a thoroughly admirable project. And the results are often magnificent.

Thanks for the interesting feedback and you are making a very good case for HIPP. I'm interested myself in the sort of phrasing thy sometimes use, and certainly in getting more articulation.

I would say that one of the problems as I see it of the modern symphony orchestra and many modern emsembles these days is that the style and the sound has become rather uniform, and in many cases can only be described as mush.

So, I will try and listen with new ears and when some period playing really grabs me try and work out what they do. If they can improve over some of the shortcomings of the modern style, then that can only be good.

Just on a slightly negative point though, I started listening to one of our period orchestras here in the UK, in a live broadcast the other night. It was the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment (a slightly pretentious title I always feel!). However, I was not at all impressed and when the soloist in the Mozart G major concerto started off in the same way, I'm afraid I switched off!

Thanks again for your collective insights, and I will check out Guiliano Carmignola.

I notice from the photos that he uses a modernish bow, and the fiddle looks modern (although it may be old) the only difference seems to be a shorter fingerboard. But the kneck length looks about the same.

Now if I had heard him "blind" I might have thought he was a modern player! I will certainly follow him up with some CD's. His mozart and vivaldi is excellent.

One thing I quite like about HIP performances is their often fast tempi. Or rather, the less embellished style allows the performers to take the piece faster without sounding rushed.

For example, Sigiswald Kuijken finishes From Congwen Wang
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:38 PM

This entry has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.