[Masolino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayG /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree that it is a boon to be able to hear, for example, the proper orchestral balances in Mozart and Beethoven symphonies/concertos. And using period instruments is one effective way to do that. But it is also not the only way.

But it is most direct and (obviously) the way the composers themselves used.

The most natural one, too: since HIP performers are not using substitute instruments that were designed to fit music from different, later times, few makeshifts, maneuvers or calculated adjustments need to be made to "rein things in" or to avoid unintended drowning-outs. Arguably this results in a freer, rather than more self-conscious, condition for performers.

Quote:

Also, my comments were directed more toward attempting HIP practices with post-Beethoven composers. Certainly the magnitude of the effect of using HIP practices increases with the age of the music, so it's a more important consideration the farther back you go.

It is really a matter of individual perceptional differences. A period performance of Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov or Ravel may seem minimally different to you from contemporary ones, but I actually have heard enough of a difference in them to think such practices are warranted. All gut-strung strings, winds with narrower bores, a good match between space acoustics and the number of musicians used... these all create tonal and timbral changes that are audible and may be significant to listeners who tend to think along similar lines with performers. Ditto regarding HIP junks which, like modern-performance-practice trash, must remain a set of subjective criteria

 

[JayG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masolino /img/forum/go_quote.gif But it is most direct and (obviously) the way the composers themselves used. The most natural one, too: since HIP performers are not using substitute instruments that were designed to fit music from different, later times, few makeshifts, maneuvers or calculated adjustments need to be made to "rein things in" or to avoid unintended drowning-outs. Arguably this results in a freer, rather than more self-conscious, condition for performers.

Yes, it's the most direct. But it takes a lot of resources and a lot of preparation on the part of the conductor and the musicians. Both have to work with instruments and sounds they are not necessarily familiar with. While the period instruments do provide greater clarity and authenticity, they often also present greater difficulty for the players. The people in the best position for these kinds of performances are the groups that are specifically designed to play in a HIP style. The problem is that there aren't many of those groups or conductors, so the majority of conductors and players don't have the opportunity to make HIP recordings, no matter how much they have to say about the music.

I like the HIP movement a lot, actually. It's making people think about the context from which our favorite music arose, and it's providing us with a fresh look at music that we've heard a thousand times. All I'm saying is that it's important not to rule out some performers (past or present) just because they aren't a part of it.

Quote:

It is really a matter of individual perceptional differences. A period performance of Mahler or Rimsky-Korsakov or Ravel may seem minimally different to you from contemporary ones, but I actually have heard enough of a difference in them to think such practices are warranted. All gut-strung strings, winds with narrower bores, a good match between space acoustics and the number of musicians used... these all create tonal and timbral changes that are audible and may be significant to listeners who tend to think along similar lines with performers. Ditto regarding HIP junks which, like modern-performance-practice trash, must remain a set of subjective criteria

I'm not saying there aren't differences. I'm sure if you and I listened to the same performance, I'd hear the same things you do. But I'm saying that, while noticeable, those details aren't the heart of the performance. Why do people love historic recordings of, for example, Beethoven's 9th recorded in god-awful 1930s/40s mono sound transferred from 78s and played with way too many strings and orchestral balances that couldn't be much more different than what they were in Beethoven's time? Because they love the conductor's vision of the work, or the sense of historic occasion at the concert, or the commitment of the musicians to the music on that particular night. There are a ton of things that go into every performance of a piece of music, and the different aspects of the HIP movement are only a few of them. They're important, but they're not everything.

-Jay

 

[HiWire]

Tchaikovsky, Violin Concerto in D, Op. 35

 

[Masolino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayG /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, it's the most direct. But it takes a lot of resources and a lot of preparation on the part of the conductor and the musicians. Both have to work with instruments and sounds they are not necessarily familiar with. While the period instruments do provide greater clarity and authenticity, they often also present greater difficulty for the players. The people in the best position for these kinds of performances are the groups that are specifically designed to play in a HIP style. The problem is that there aren't many of those groups or conductors, so the majority of conductors and players don't have the opportunity to make HIP recordings, no matter how much they have to say about the music. I like the HIP movement a lot, actually. It's making people think about the context from which our favorite music arose, and it's providing us with a fresh look at music that we've heard a thousand times. All I'm saying is that it's important not to rule out some performers (past or present) just because they aren't a part of it.

Sure, but we can certainly use more "period" performances for a lot of classical music we love, so efforts of wholesale or gradual conversion to HIP or HIP-influenced styles are always welcomed! My point is that a correct and fair understanding of HIP as a stylistic option is desirable to listeners, since they will be better informed next time they need to make a cd- or ticket-buying choice!


Quote:

I'm not saying there aren't differences. I'm sure if you and I listened to the same performance, I'd hear the same things you do. But I'm saying that, while noticeable, those details aren't the heart of the performance. Why do people love historic recordings of, for example, Beethoven's 9th recorded in god-awful 1930s/40s mono sound transferred from 78s and played with way too many strings and orchestral balances that couldn't be much more different than what they were in Beethoven's time? Because they love the conductor's vision of the work, or the sense of historic occasion at the concert, or the commitment of the musicians to the music on that particular night. There are a ton of things that go into every performance of a piece of music, and the different aspects of the HIP movement are only a few of them. They're important, but they're not everything. -Jay

Yes, and I am not proposing that anyone throw away their non-HIP recordings posthaste. Still, if HIP performances of Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner or Mahler continue to be considered as a mere curiosity, rather than a potentially illuminating way to hear the music (which it is), then something that ought to be done isn't being done (right) yet. Just how important HIP aspects are to the performances of nineteenth- and early twentieth century music? I tend to think that this is something listeners can decide for themselves, provided there are enough opportunities for them to experience and/or compare the (audiable) differences firsthand.

 

[Bunnyears]

Here's an old thread that I'm bumping because I just bought the Casadesus/Francescatti Beethoven Sonatas for Piano and Violin, recently reissued by Arkivmusic under license from Sony. These are great older performances that really have stood the test of time. They are priced at the mid to high price level of about $45 for the 3 cds, but the recording is oop so this actually represents a very good price considering that I saw the original edition for sale a few weeks ago at around $100.00 either at Amazon, ebay, or some other vendor in used condition. Arkivmusic doesn't spend money on the packaging -- no liner notes what so ever, tracks and times on the back and a copy of the cd cover on the trayfront. What really surprised me was how good the sound is. It's not modern sacd, but although it can be somewhat bright in places, in general it is very good. Moreover, these are benchmark performances in the old, mid 20th century slightly romantic style. Although tempos are generally brisk, the violin has the more 20th century amount of vibrato even as the pedaling on the piano is also more generous. Balance between piano and violin is excellent so that the piano really stands out and is not pushed back as in some other recordings. Too often they are played as if written for violin and piano rather than piano and violin. Highly recommended for anyone who isn't looking for an HIP recording.

For those looking for HIP, I've recently found a cd offering the Immerseel/Schröder recording of the Spring and Kreutzer sonatas which is excellent and the Fleezanis/Huvé complete sonatas which I haven't had a chance to listen to yet. I'll get around to them eventually and post at a future date.

 

[empire23]

lol, nobody ever mentions Baroque do they?

Guiseppe Tartini's The Devil Trill Violin Sonata for me , i'm a sucker for technicality sometimes.

 

[Sordel]

Interesting thread for me, because although I have a lot of string quartet material, for some reason piano/violin has never appealed to me and it's not an area that I've listened to much. For me, then, it has to be the Bach Sonatas & Partitas, although I don't think that they're "sonatas" as the OP probably intended the question.

Going slightly off-topic, however, I can heartily recommend the Kim Kashkashian/Robert Levin 2-CD set of Hindemith's Sonatas for Viola & Piano and Viola Alone on ECM. Little-known repertoire for an instrument that tends to get bad press, but definitely one for the chamber music fan.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by empire23 /img/forum/go_quote.gif lol, nobody ever mentions Baroque do they? Guiseppe Tartini's The Devil Trill Violin Sonata for me , i'm a sucker for technicality sometimes.

In the baroque period, "sonata" was used to denote music that was played as opposed to "cantata" (sung), and could refer to either solo instrumental music with basso continuo accompaniment or any sized ensemble. The sonata form was standardized in the classical period first by Haydn (one of his greatest accomplishments was to apply it to the symphony) and then Mozart. There are baroque sonatas (secular termed sonatas di camera; and religious termed sonatas di chiesa), and the sonatas that most people refer to as sonatas were the sonatas di camera. Thus, the great sonata period was not in the Baroque so fewer Baroque pieces will be mentioned.

Btw, Tartini actually did not compose in the classic Baroque style but rather in the Galante or Rococo style, a transitional style marked by a simplification or the rules of counterpoint and fugue that governed the Baroque period. It's a style termed Early Classical more often than Late Baroque.