Bach and karl Richter

A very short reaction, I have to go to work.
This is all about (mis)interpretation of the Klang=Rede thing of Mattheson. But trying to understand historical sources, and making mistakes with that, and then come with a hypothesis is something else than creating a hype. The hype is not created by the founders in most cases, the hype is created by stubborn followers.

Listen, btw, to the growing differences between Harnoncourt's versions of Bach's Passions.
And, H. had said many times in interviews: claiming authenticity is a lie: "Authenticity does not exist!"

I think Leonhardt is the more 'fundamental' HIP-er, BTW. He does not believe there is such thing as 'interpretation' at all. He only beliefs in 'performing'.

But, both Leonhardt or Harnoncourt, are not the entire HIP world. What you're claiming is actually praticized (in vocal works) by f.i. Herreweghe, and maybe also Suzuki.
They play Bach's vocal music far more 'round' and 'vocal'. And they are part of the 'HIP-hype', too.

 

And, according to a colleague, who plays a natural trumpet, didn't do it in the baroque way! The so-called modern baroque trumpets have holes, which the originals never had. For anyone slightly interested, here's his explanation:

The natural trumpet plays the harmonic series with just temperament - ie the correct mathematical relationships between frequencies. This makes the third of the chord a bit flat by modern standards but it means that 3 natural trumpets sounding a tonic triad will do so without any element of discord. The modern system has discord in the tonic triad owing to the rather sharp third. (For simplicity, I will now refer to an 8 foot natural trumpet in C). In other words, the E at the bottom of the treble clef is a bit flatter on a natural trumpet than on a modern keyboard. Similarly the Bflat in the middle of the clef is a bit flat by modern standards. The worst problems are the F at the top of the treble clef and the first ledger line A above it. The F on the natural trumpet lies about half way between modern F and Fsharp and the A lies between Gsharp and A. Thus on an original instrument you have 2 choices, either play it as it is and have all the string players pull faces or bend it by a quarter tone. The latter is very difficult to do. Bach uses both harmonics for both possibilities of each (ie he wrote Fnatuarals, Fsharps, Gsharps and A naturals) which means that in his day, either the trumpet players were very skilful or audiences and string players didn't mind intonation problems the way their modern counterparts do. (Or possibly, Bach's orchestras didn't use even temperament) (Even temperament puts the frequency ratio between all semitones as 12th root of 2.) The holes in the modern natural trumpets are there to correct the intonation, so they are not really the equivalents of the holes in woodwind instruments. Mine is a 4 hole system. Opening the thumb hole flattens the F to the modern level. Opening the next hole sharpens it to F sharp. The third hole sharpens the A to bring it into tune. The fourth hole is a real cheat. It is more like a woodwind hole in that it effectively shortens the instrument. Opening it makes an 8-foot [2.44M] trumpet behave like a 4-foot trumpet (the length of the modern trumpet). In other words, many of the notes are lost. Starting at the C in the middle of the treble clef, the 8-foot instrument can play (going up) C, D, E, F, G, A, B flat, B, C, D etc. A 4-foot instrument can only play C, E, G, B flat, C, D etc. So by opening the 4th hole, you gain security on certain of the high notes. For example, if you want to play the Gt, on the 8-foot instrument, you could miss it and hit either F or A. If you open the 4th hole and "shorten" the instrument to 4 feet, the next nearest notes to the G are E and Bflat, so it is easier not to hit the wrong one.

 

The problem with trumpets epitomises the general problem of how to reproduce an old instrument.

If we take the organ as an example, something that has always struck me is that when I listen or play an organ before restoration it sounds as if asthmatic. The wind is very problematic. It is unsteady, the instrument often sounds out of tune even when it is not, very dense polyphony with the full organ means horrible wobbling of the sound and every time you use a stop above the 4 foot you will get trembling, as if a very old man is trying to sing. In truth, it is unacceptable by most people.

The fluework is seldom even in speech: some pipes ‘chiff’, others sometimes ‘ping’, and yet others just buzz a little before the note.
The reeds are very often uneven. In some organs I simply refuse to use them, because a melody sounds ridiculous when some notes are shouted and others whispered independently of ‘good’ (beat, beginning of phrase) or ‘bad’ notes (off beat).
The keyboards are often hard to play. Not because they are uneven (they are, that is natural in old instruments) but because they were built in a way that makes it impossible to play with a great deal of control: sometimes everything is suspended and the keyboard actually sways and trembles if you strike it with any amount of force. The keys, when made of bone, are difficult to play because one cannot very well slide the fingertips; often it is impossible to put one’s fingers between two sharps. The result is hard playing, somewhat chopped. You are expected to get used to the keyboard, but even if you do, it will have serious effects on how you play.

My reaction was, at the beginning: were the builders, organist and so on, of the time unable to hear?? Later I came to the conclusion that they did not mind. They were used to things not working properly. We find ourselves in more or less the situation of someone used to drive a new 21st century car, having to suddenly switch to a 1950 car. It feels weak, brutal and powerless at the same time, in fact, an incompetently planned car. Yet, many people found it faultless when it came out. Using the parallel and un-mixing the metaphor, the 50ies car and the old baroque organ seem faulty to us, used to different and better made products; but they were, back then, the cutting edge of perfection.

When restoring, organ builders react just like me: they don’t like the sound. They say that is because the bellows are weak. Then they say possibly the toe holes (the admission holes through which the wind enters the tube) were narrowed, or that the upper lips have been cut. In a very old pipe there are always changes made a long time ago, so it is impossible to know when they were done (unless a great deal of very expensive work is done) so the restorers are free to say what they like and modify the sound according to their taste. The only thing they cannot really change is the keyboard, but it is polished and made to work fine.

After restoration the organ is almost always smoother, the wind is steadier, the mechanics a little more robust and overall playing up to modern standards is easier. The organist is pleased, the concert and church goers are pleased, the curate is pleased, and only the more stubborn people that have actually played the organ claim that it is no longer the same instrument and that a lot of character has been lost.

Using the metaphor again, the problem, as I see it, is that we are the product of 20th Century precision. No one would have a Morris minor if he or she could afford a Ford Fiesta: it is so much easier to drive and so much more confortable. And after all one uses a car to go from here to there. And one uses an organ or a trumpet to play this or that.

In a limited way, I made the experiment myself. For the last year I kept my harpsichord tuned to mean tone. Many – indeed most – of Bach’s fugues and even many suite movements are unplayable in such a tuning (temperament). E major, c # minor and many others are painful, horrible. So I restricted myself to 16th and 17th Century music.
The problem is that I sometimes like to play Bach. I cannot really forget that I like it. And the beauty of the pure thirds (that is what Tones’ trumpeter friend mentioned) cannot really substitute for it.
So recently I tuned it in modern temperament. It is horrible for someone used to the pure thirds, but it is playable. And the beauty of some of Bach’s fugues makes up for the lack of the mellow harmony of mean tone temperament played in c major, d minor or major, g minor and the tension of e minor and f minor (if one can withstand the harshness). In short: I cannot forget that I like Bach; neither can I forget that I like French harpsichords, even if they were made in the late 18th Century and I am playing 16th Century music with them.

So playing according to really well researched criteria is a non-compromising, difficult, and frustrating affair. We may want to know how it was done, but we cannot really express ourselves through the media available. Compromises must be reached and, while historically informed one must always see one's interpretations as renderings, translations, as it were, to modern listeners (above all, ourselves).

Consequently, I believe that HIP performance belongs in the Museum. As I said, it would be important to have more HI available to actual musicians, but sadly once their formative years are over, most of them cease to study. Perhaps that is necessary: they are, after all, seeking to express themselves and are not academics. Thus a HIP leader like Leonhardt makes quite a lot of historical blunders (the ‘Mietkes’, over dotting, even keyboard changes in Froberger’s Tombeau, and so on). He is convincing because he developed into a great musician, but that would happen whether his harpsichords were right or wrong. They are wrong. So were Walcha’s. Both are brilliant musicians. And, for that matter, so was Wilhelm Kempff when playing Bach in the piano (which paradoxically restricts the emotions one can actually portray when playing harpsichord music while opening a wide range of other expressive possibilities even staying within the spirit of the music – just listen to Kempff's Nun komm).

I really think forgetting HIP is necessary to actually play well: one is playing how one feels the music; one cannot pretend to feel it according to the brains of people from three or four hundred years ago. Bach probably thought witches were to be burned or drowned, Jews to be evil, God to be all powerful, the devil really alive and acting. How could we possibly mimic that after being taught to be modern Europeans? All that and much more (locks that worked improperly, boots that leaked, beer that was sometimes almost undrinkable, lice in the bed, foul smell, young children that were likely to die, teeth that fell and were irreplaceable and so on) is certain to have affected the way he saw the world: it was not perfect, it was crude, harsh and brutal. How could we even begin to immagine how it felt to be alive and able to play in the 17th or 18th Centuries, let alone how they played back then?

That brings me to an even more serious question: we do not listen to the same notes, either: how can we really appreciate a dissonance in Bach after knowing Mahler? How spurious HIP seems in all this context!

Playing is ALWAYS a matter of interpretation. When I consider, say the WTC, by Walcha, Gilbert, Leonhardt, Koopman, Kempff, Gould or Goulda I use the only true criterium I can honestly defend: my taste, that of a historically more or less informed european born after the war and educated in the respect of science, culture and life. In this light it matters very little that the harpsichord is wrong or even if the piano is used. Some interpretations are obviously flawed (Gould, Goulda, even Koopman) but that is because they actually go against the overall structure of the music (how do I know this? I posted at length about it. If you want I will redirect). But apart from that, the importance of historical considerations in details is very small.

Long post, boring read, I fear...

 

I'm sorry? I know that Harnoncourt is famed for not having understood Mattheson (among many other errors) but what exactly do you mean?

 

Yezz, my mistake: my reaction was not only short, but also typed in far too much of a hurry.

In fact, I tried to say something like you just wrote, about musicians and scholars and their different/wrong/right interpretations of old sources.
This happens with f.i. the writings of Mattheson, but also with the famous Entwurf of Bach, which was written for the Leipzig city council.

I myself am only a (interested) layman, so I'm not going to say who's 'wrong' or who's 'right'. If I listen to Baroque music (or any other music), I just follow my own taste. How pigheaded!
But I like to read any contribution to the HIP-discussion. So, thanks for yours!

(Oops, nearly forgot to thanks tones! Thanks, tones!)

Following my own taste obviously means that I prefer Harnoncourt above Richter, for instance. I even like Harnoncourt's performances in general.
But, even if he was wrong with his assumptions, I still do not believe that he (or Leonhardt, or whoever) was/is studying old sources just to please 'a revolution hungry crowd'.

They made a ball rolling, and in fact I think that almost all our contributions in this thread are still some kind of a consequence of that. Let's thank Leonhardt and Harnoncourt for that!
We're all happily joining in the HIP-hype about defending some assumptions/theories and rejecting others.

Rodrigo, I realize that you have a lot of knowledge about keyboard instruments (and their history) that I do not have, so I'm not really able to contradict you.... I just wouldn't dare.
But I wouldn't be surprised if there were still a lot of scholars and so-called connaisseurs who claim you make mistakes in your assumptions, too.

Maybe you should send your contributions to Leonhardt. He might have something to say about it.
It might sound somehow like this (these are some quotes, taken from the booklet that goes with his Sony Jubilee Edition):
I believe that if a performer - 'interpreter' is not the right word in this context! - admires works by a composer and wants to play them, then he should also show the music the respect it deserves. To me, 'to interpret' also means 'to translate', and we should avoid translating music: the musician's task is to present the work, to play it like the composer intended. I believe that a musician has a moral obligation to try and recreate a work as the composer meant it to be heard. Of course it sometimes happens that one doesn't know enough: in such cases, you have to make an informed guess. But you shouldn't just proceed as you think fit.

Remember, this is Leonhardt speaking, not the Zerogain member Marc. I can't defend this opinion, because I myself just wouldn't know how to play music without bringing in some of your own personality. So I think that beliefs and quotes like Leonhardt's just personify the speaker.

Harnoncourt, BTW, is not only 'famed' for his misunderstandings , but also for being less strict.
Maybe that's caused by the fact that Leonhardt is of protestant origin, and Harnoncourt is a catholic?

 

Dear Marc:

I can only say that I, too, listen with pleasure to some of Harnoncourt's recordings. To say I like them is slightly wrong: I would say I understand them and respect the musicianship. But I usually don't relate well to his worldview. But, as you know, that was not the point: the point being that calling others ignoramuses and claiming authenticity without a very sound basis for that just is not cricket.

As to the Leonhardt sentence you quoted. I don't understand it – or rather, I do, but Leonhardt being a very intelligent person, either he is giving words like 'interpretation', 'translation' and 'performance' new meanings or he is just being charming and oracular. Because how can he play music according to the way the composer wanted it to be interpreted unless he (Leonhardt) builds in his mind a representation of the composer's mind? And that representation, how does it differ from 'interpretation' of a composer's mind? Given the fact that he bases this interpretation on the score, how does this differ from interpreting the score itself?

So what I think Leonhardt is saying that he doesn't want to express Gustav Maria Leonhardt's feelings through Bach (etc.), but rather Johann Sebastian Bach's. And this, of course, is impossible.

All that can be done is, as Pollini often says, is to try to play the archetypal version of a work of music. Even this is highly questionable, but one gets the point: not to impose the interpreter on the composer. This means that the interpreter places him/herself totally at the service of the music.

That Leonhardt, of all people, should imply this is not so much as surprising to me as bizarre. Take his WTC2. The C prelude is not played as the composer wanted it to sound; in the fugue in g minor an entire chord is played an octave lower than written. Da capi are almost never played. And so on.

If I were to chose someone as a respectful player I would say Gilbert, Rousset, Marie Claire Alain, but never, ever, Leonhardt.

 

The point is you should ask personally Leonhardt why he played like that. It is very easy to criticise people and to talk bad of them especially when you're talking to people you haven't so much knowledge as you have. A more intelligent and respectfull way, but of course more difficult, is to find out the background of their acts. In some cases a direct correspondence with the person involved is the easiest and best way.

 

Leonhardt may be many things, among others a very great musician. But he is definitely not accessible. In fact I met him. He doesn't like to talk about his records.

 

Tones: I've wandered over from an adjacent thread and found this fairly recent posting of yours. The Jochum recording of the Christmas Oratorio was the first of the five I've subsequently acquired on CD. It was remaindered (on sale) at a considerable discount, and it remains probably my most cherished version. You don't see it referenced much these days, which is why I was pleased to discover your posting. Regards, Jim