Electric violin

[Peter]

So, all this much hyped Eliot Gardner, Hogwood tiresome refrain about returning to the 'authentic' sound is a con , because they are not playing on authentic instruments anyway. Some of the real authentic piano's for instance, may well have been very old and dated back a century or more to the 17th century, and this is the case certainly for pianos in the Southern German/Austrian tradition, whereas the organ was the great instrument in Northern Germany, following the Lutheran reformation.
So not only are these reproduction pianos, they haven't even been around enough to mature in sound and mellow and may not sound anything like sound produced by the original pianos in Germany in the 1790's and 1800's.
Also, Hogwood and co, pay too little attention to the cultural context.

Well the official date for the first piano is 1709, but the authentic movement does use instruments from the appropriate time, even using Beethoven's own Broadwod which I'm none too fond of - in fact it was a recording of Op.78 on this instrument that put me off fortepianos for years. I was once of your opinion and you will see if you do a search we have had some pretty heated debates on this topic in the past. I realise now since I purchased a beautiful 1814 Dettmer square piano that these instruments vary enormously - I find playing Mozart on this instrument immensely rewarding but Beethoven does demand more power than I dare use, so I save him for the Bechstein! I also attended a performance of the 4th piano concerto using a fortepiano in the very hall it was premiered - the Theater an der Wien and I was pleasantly surprised at the instrument's capabilities, coping with the most delicate passages in such a big hall. So I think it depends on whether the instrument is reproduction or the amount and quality of restoration that has been done.

I do not hold to the rather dogmatic view of the purists that only period instruments should be used, certainly not in Beethoven's case as he was known to be disatisfied with the instrument as late as 1826.

[Chris]

I realise now since I purchased a beautiful 1814 Dettmer square piano that these instruments vary enormously - I find playing Mozart on this instrument immensely rewarding but Beethoven does demand more power than I dare use, so I save him for the Bechstein!

I thought your piano was a Yamaha, Peter. No?

[Peter]

I thought your piano was a Yamaha, Peter. No?

No, it is a restored 1929 Bechstein. Here are pictures of the Bechstein and Dettmer.

[Chris]

Very nice! How long is the Bechstein? Does it sound good in that room?

[Peter]

Very nice! How long is the Bechstein? Does it sound good in that room?

It's a model B 6'8 and sounds terrific. Great tone range and powerful bass. The room has high ceilings so it takes it. The Dettmer also has a lovely sound, especially its bass which is very rich. Surprisingly the Bechstein has had more restoration than the Dettmer which was in extremely good condition and had obviously been well looked after - the restorer did a first rate job in keeping all the original parts, except for the strings. Mozart and Haydn are a delight to play on it - the trills seem so much easier!

[Megan]

What a beautiful Bechstein Peter,

I note your point about the dating on the earliest pianos, and the fact is of course that Beethoven, a fantastic soloist in his own right was constantly seeking upgrades on his pianos and I think he would have been baffled by this authentic purism. I do not accept that certain marking on his scores could only be played on the earlier fortepiano and I know this is certainly Brendel's view and who am I to argue there.
I also heard a Broadwood played by Robert Levin at a lecture on Beethoven at the British museum about 4 years ago, his playing was brilliant , but the sound , oh dear !
I also have a CD with Elly Ney playing Beethoven's Broadwood, and though it is historically interesting, I was very disappointed with it. bearing in mind that Beethoven sadly would not have heard it play, because by then, his deafness was almost total.

My own personal view is that the violin has greater expressive range than the piano. I say that at risk of receiving a bashing from you know who

,

[Peter]

What a beautiful Bechstein Peter,

I note your point about the dating on the earliest pianos, and the fact is of course that Beethoven, a fantastic soloist in his own right was constantly seeking upgrades on his pianos and I think he would have been baffled by this authentic purism. I do not accept that certain marking on his scores could only be played on the earlier fortepiano and I know this is certainly Brendel's view and who am I to argue there.
I also heard a Broadwood played by Robert Levin at a lecture on Beethoven at the British museum about 4 years ago, his playing was brilliant , but the sound , oh dear !
I also have a CD with Elly Ney playing Beethoven's Broadwood, and though it is historically interesting, I was very disappointed with it. bearing in mind that Beethoven sadly would not have heard it play, because by then, his deafness was almost total.

My own personal view is that the violin has greater expressive range than the piano. I say that at risk of receiving a bashing from you know who

,

Thank you Megan - Beethoven's pedalling is the only problem we have with the modern piano, such as in the Moonlight sonata where in the first movement he directs it to be held throughout - impossible on the modern piano, though I believe some well known pianist does it!

As to the more expressive qualities of the violin, hmm - I think that depends on who is playing! I think the violin is closer to the human voice and song, but pianists should strive to achieve this on the piano. Our problem is sustaining long notes and creating the illusion of a crescendo through a long note.

[Quijote]

So, all this much hyped Eliot Gardner, Hogwood tiresome refrain about returning to the 'authentic' sound is a con , because they are not playing on authentic instruments anyway. Some of the real authentic piano's for instance, may well have been very old and dated back a century or more to the 17th century, and this is the case certainly for pianos in the Southern German/Austrian tradition, whereas the organ was the great instrument in Northern Germany, following the Lutheran reformation.
So not only are these reproduction pianos, they haven't even been around enough to mature in sound and mellow and may not sound anything like sound produced by the original pianos in Germany in the 1790's and 1800's.
Also, Hogwood and co, pay too little attention to the cultural context.

Hello Megan. 'Authentic instrument' is admittedly a misleading term, but it is the spirit of the HIP (historically informed performance) approach that counts. And there are many fine 'reproduction' instruments that do recreate the sound of the original period even so.
I have played on both a real 'old' instrument and a reproduction and they both 'work' for me (and I'm referring to a 'cello in this case), though it's true to a point that the 'mellowness' is not the same.
Where playing on 'authentic' instruments counts (as far as strings are concerend) is in factors such as bow 'attack', articulation, string material (gut), phrasing, fingering and so on.
As to your comment that you find the violin more expressive is debatable (and worth elaborating from your end if you don't mind), although Peter has addressed that issue in part.
Your comment about Hogwood et al not paying enough attention to the cultural context raises fascinating questions. It is true (and I think this is perhaps what you are referring to) that we can not 'reconstruct' or 'recreate' the actual 'listening attitude' that would have been prevalent at that historical moment (and here HIP can NEVER claim to do so). As Taruskin has pointed out, in some ways the HIP movement is perhaps the most 'modern' approach to performance / interpretation inasmuch as it manifests a modern sensibility to playing "older" music. In other words, HIP in the final analysis can only be "a play of the contemporary creative sensibility upon the past" (Joseph Kerman, Contemplating Music).
You spoke before about HIP occupying the 'moral high ground', so to speak. Please don't forget that this is a mere reflection of the buying trends of the music-loving population - if HIP seems to you to dominate the market that is because, simply, a lot of people actually prefer (therefore choose) to buy the stuff!
What do you think?

[Michael]

I am not a 'Telford Wife' (I hope you know the film or else this reference will fall flat - hah! no pun intended).

A little off the subject, but what is a "Telford Wife"? Do you mean a "Stepford Wife?"

[Quijote]

A little off the subject, but what is a "Telford Wife"? Do you mean a "Stepford Wife?"

Hello Michael. Yes, sorry about the confusion, I did mean 'Stepford Wife". That said, what are "Telford Wives" like now we have broached the subject?

[Quijote]

Come on, Megan! What say you?

[Gurn Blanston]

I think, Philip, that she is good as her word not to engage in debate with you. I won't either, actually, since I am in agreement with what you are saying. Just an old HIPpie, you know?

One point you brought up in your last post, rather en passant, concerns the listening audience. I have made this point myself in several discussions, that the big weakness of HIP lies not in the instruments, or the players, or even the treatment of the music. It is in the fact that the audience itself, one of the main factors is every performance, simply cannot hear the music with the same ears as those it was composed for. We are mainly ignorant of the philosophy and meaning that music had to those people. We are also carrying the baggage of the entire Romantic and post-Romantic musical experience in our brains, and this colors everything we hear, no matter that we try to cleanse our minds to some sort of philosophic purity. So no matter how I listen to Savall play Eroica, I still have Toscanini in there too. I hate it, but there it is. I can never be a 19th century man, no matter the extent I try to intellectualize it. So I take it for what it's worth, which is plenty good enough for me.



----------------
Now playing: Kraus String Quartets - Lysell Quartet - Kraus Quartet #6 in G for Strings 3rd mvmt

[Quijote]

I think, Philip, that she is good as her word not to engage in debate with you. I won't either, actually, since I am in agreement with what you are saying. Just an old HIPpie, you know?

One point you brought up in your last post, rather en passant, concerns the listening audience. I have made this point myself in several discussions, that the big weakness of HIP lies not in the instruments, or the players, or even the treatment of the music. It is in the fact that the audience itself, one of the main factors is every performance, simply cannot hear the music with the same ears as those it was composed for. We are mainly ignorant of the philosophy and meaning that music had to those people. We are also carrying the baggage of the entire Romantic and post-Romantic musical experience in our brains, and this colors everything we hear, no matter that we try to cleanse our minds to some sort of philosophic purity. So no matter how I listen to Savall play Eroica, I still have Toscanini in there too. I hate it, but there it is. I can never be a 19th century man, no matter the extent I try to intellectualize it. So I take it for what it's worth, which is plenty good enough for me.

Thank you Gurn Blanston for your thoughtful reply. Megan did in fact reply after 'poking her thumb' at me (is that the expression?). And as I pointed out to him (her? / don't care either way), I will henceforth tone down my robustness in my replies.

As to your HIP (historically-informed performance) reply, you are quite right, we can never get rid of our cultural baggage, but this need not necessarily negate the 'validity' of HIP music. You said that we are mainly ignorant of the philosophy and meaning that music had to those people. I agree completely, but would go even further : we are ignorant of the philosophy and meaning of that music (18th / 19th century) even today, and equally ignorant of the meaning of music written today. It is for this reason that I am so acidic when people talk about higher (spritual / real ...) truths. (But please, I don't want to get into that debate right now. I am happy to debate these issues on a different thread if you wish, and I do think these are aesthetic / philosophical issues that need to be pursued ...later). That our entire 'listening history' colours (as you say) everything we hear is also a given. It is for this reason (well, one of many reasons) that I champion electroacoustic (or acousmatic) music : as a music that is to some significant respect 'cleansed' of such baggage. Again, this is not a specifically Beethoven-related topic so I'd better leave it there.
We will have much to say, I think, Gurn Blanston. I look forward to it.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thank you Gurn Blanston for your thoughtful reply. Megan did in fact reply after 'poking her thumb' at me (is that the expression?). And as I pointed out to him (her? / don't care either way), I will henceforth tone down my robustness in my replies.

As to your HIP (historically-informed performance) reply, you are quite right, we can never get rid of our cultural baggage, but this need not necessarily negate the 'validity' of HIP music. You said that we are mainly ignorant of the philosophy and meaning that music had to those people. I agree completely, but would go even further : we are ignorant of the philosophy and meaning of that music (18th / 19th century) even today, and equally ignorant of the meaning of music written today. It is for this reason that I am so acidic when people talk about higher (spritual / real ...) truths. (But please, I don't want to get into that debate right now. I am happy to debate these issues on a different thread if you wish, and I do think these are aesthetic / philosophical issues that need to be pursued ...later). That our entire 'listening history' colours (as you say) everything we hear is also a given. It is for this reason (well, one of many reasons) that I champion electroacoustic (or acousmatic) music : as a music that is to some significant respect 'cleansed' of such baggage. Again, this is not a specifically Beethoven-related topic so I'd better leave it there.
We will have much to say, I think, Gurn Blanston. I look forward to it.

Philip,
Yes, well I thought, having read many of your posts, that we might be kindred spirits where HIP is concerned.

I don't mean to say that there is any problem with the music being performed this way, since I love it as such. But the aspect of HIP, one that is often touted as a major factor, that is simply not there is this one: "we relive the concert experience of the 18th/early 19th century". We do hear the proper instruments (usually), and we do (often) hear the proper tempi, ornamentation, repeats, all those things which are capable of being recreated from the study of history. Sadly though, the "we hear it as the original audience heard it" aspect is what is missing. We may indeed hear it, but we simply cannot appreciate it in the same fashion.

I recently read an essay in "Haydn and his World" concerning the simulation of a rhetorical debate in Haydn's symphonies. And with a complete analysis to substantiate the model. But rhetoric is not part of my philosophy, and even knowing this now, I cannot begin to listen to music and break it down into this sort of model. Can you? And Dahl makes similar analogies in his "The Aesthetics of Music", tying the whole concept of aesthetics into its underlying philosophy and showing how music was appreciated in that way. And it was innate to the listener, because the listeners were only the intelligentsia and they had learned about music in that way.

So that particular part of "recreating the experience" will always be beyond my ken, and I am stuck in the position of being a 21st century man appreciating 18th/19th century music in ways it wasn't intended, no matter that it is being played, finally, in the way it WAS intended.

Or is this too abstruse?




----------------
Now playing: Boccherini - Quintettes avec contrebasse, Op. 39 - Ensemble 415 - Op. 39 #1 3rd mvmt - Rondeau: Allegro non tanto / Minuetto / Rondeau

[Peter]

Philip,
Yes, well I thought, having read many of your posts, that we might be kindred spirits where HIP is concerned.

I don't mean to say that there is any problem with the music being performed this way, since I love it as such. But the aspect of HIP, one that is often touted as a major factor, that is simply not there is this one: "we relive the concert experience of the 18th/early 19th century". We do hear the proper instruments (usually), and we do (often) hear the proper tempi, ornamentation, repeats, all those things which are capable of being recreated from the study of history. Sadly though, the "we hear it as the original audience heard it" aspect is what is missing. We may indeed hear it, but we simply cannot appreciate it in the same fashion.

Who wants to recreate the original performance conditions? Take that mammoth concert of Dec 22nd 1808 the 4th piano concerto for example, sitting for hours in a freezing hall with the whole first movement lost in uproar! I'm not sure if 'appreciate' is the word that can be applied to many audiences of the time - people were far more open about expressing their reactions with booing and hissing - something we wouldn't tolerate today! 18th century opera productions were often little more than drunken social gatherings accompanied by music, with the occasional aria being listened to.