Talk:Historically informed performance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 'Authenticity'

What is being discussed here, the approach or the practicalities? I would suggest that the question of 'authenticity' is philosophical rather than practical. The discussion of instruments and techniques are the mud in these theoretical waters. There should be mention made of the writings of Joseph Kerman, Richard Taruskin and John Butt to name but three. An essential text here would be 'Playing with history' by Butt. Or perhaps I am missing the point?Albinoduck 13:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mozart, Portamento

This is a very good interesting article. I enjoyed it very much, thank you. I tend to be enthousiastic about authentic performance, and in fact this article enlightened me about my own listening habits and aesthetical preferences. I have two questions, and I'd like to politely ask for a slight extension of the article, at least w. r. t. the second question.

In the section "Authenticity or contemporary taste" it reads: "First, it is known from Mozart's correspondence that he was enthusiastic about the idea of performing his symphonies with very large orchestral forces, along the lines of 40 violins, with analogous numbers for the other instruments." Is there any debate about what exactly this means for the performance of the symphonies? My first reaction when reading this was to say to my self "Well, he might have wished for a large orchester, but the music he wrote was written for small ones." I wonder whether this is actually the case. This being a somewhat important issue, I'd imagine that it has already been debated. I could also imagine that there is some reasoning about it possible based on a thorough analysis of Mozart's Symphonies. (I seem to recall, btw., that there are "authentic" performances of Mozart's symphonies with rather large orchestras.)

Hi Utis,
Hmmm, I need to look this up in the book I read it in, which I don't have with me right now. Bear with me...

The same section also states that "portamento" is hardly used in authentic performances. While the text describes succesfully what portamento is, it does not say anything about its musical or aesthetical qualities. Not bein a trained musician, I understand the words, but I can't imagine "how it would sound", so to say. What are the reasons that not even proponents of authentic performances want to make use of portamento? -- Utis 13:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll give this a try: basic idea is it slurs the boundaries between the notes. Opus33 15:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It does indeed clarify the issue for me. IMO, it is also a stronger argument than the use of small orchestras for this statement: "This supports the view that the authentic performance movement exists in large part to satisfy musical tastes that were evolving in a particular direction in any event." (Did I already mention that I find this article enlightening? I have always been wondering something like this myself.)

[As an aside: I guess that the truth lies somewhere in between. I think that those musical tastes have both been the source of the desire for authenticity as well as the result of it (musical tasted shaped by perfomance practice). But the desire for purity and clearness, which created the authentic performance movement and which at the same time has been created by it, does at the same time preclude things like portamento. But maybe I make the mistake here to judge too much from my own experiences.] --- Utis 14:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Period Performance

This is a well done article, but why is it called "authentic performance?" I think "period performance" would be a better title because it is more neutral sounding and because the phrase "period performance" is more commonly used. This article is balanced and its title ought to reflect this balance.

Please sign your posts. I've never heard the term "period performance." Really the most common term is "performance practice," but "authentic performance" widely used as well. Another common one is "historically informed performance," although that means something slightly different. —Wahoofive | Talk 22:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I haven't heard of the term "period performance," but I also haven't heard of "authentic performance." "Performance practice" is probably the most widely used and the most neutral term. I believe it is the term used in the Grove Dictionary. "Authenticity" is often a separate issue and a contentious one, and moreover a more modern development than the study of performance practice itself. --Jinnentonik 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that I've read the article, this seems like it should be titled "Historically informed performance." At the very least there should be an explanation at the beginning.--Jinnentonik 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The movement

I was surprised that the article made no mention of Arnold Dolmetch and his 1915 book The Interpretation of the Music of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries. I think he made a major contribution to the movement (although opinion of what is truly authentic may have changed since his day). I haven't edited the article because I don't want to damage its overall coherence by tacking on a reference, but suggest that Dolmetch should be credited. Bluewave 10:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not start by adding it to the bibliography? Robert Donington and Thurston Dart should go there too. In fact, the biblio section is currently very strange: a couple of tertiary sources and one very specialized one. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's go with more articulated lists

Hello,

Someone started an overall, generic list of authentic performance artists. But the article already mentions lots of them--in the right places; that is, sorted by kind of performer (fortepianist, countertenor, etc.), and coming after the discussion of the relevant instrument or voice. I think this is far more useful to a reader than an undifferentiated list would be.

It's true that to find these lists you have to read the article, but why should we care about Wikipedia users who don't want to bother with reading the article?

B.t.w. if by "Carmina Burana" was meant the work by Carl Orff--that's a 20th century work, meant to be performed by a huge orchestra and chorus using modern instruments. It wouldn't really fit in here anyway.

Opus33 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Why not care about the readers? Surely it is for them that wikipedia is created and maintained, not for its contributors to show off their encyclopaedic knowledge.

Couldn't see a reference to Carmina Burana anywhere - was it on an earlier version of the page? This is the first time I have looked here. The reference would probably be to the most important source of 12th century Latin poetry (lit. Songs of Beuren) that Orff later used as the text for his work (without any associated melodies). Albinoduck 12:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalog of Authentic Instruments

The instruments themselves are fascinating. Apparently there are others scored by well known classical composers, such as Berlioz, not yet mentioned in this article.

http://www.berliozhistoricalbrass.org/buccin.htm

There is a Wiki entry for "authentic instruments" which likewise falls short of comprehensiveness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_instruments

[edit] Musicology, Music History

I have added a subsection on performance practice in the articles Musicology and Music history. In both disciplines of course the focus of authentic performance tends to be research rather than the training of players, so the sections only cover a small part of this article's focus. I would appreciate any contributions. --Myke Cuthbert 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

  • Authentic performance and period performance refer to attempts to re-create exactly the performance details of the past in a modern performance
  • Historically-informed performance refers to performances which choose some performance practices and omit others, sometimes for purposes of audience appeal.
  • Performance practice refers to details of performance technique which were used in performances within historical styles periods, as well as they can be ascertained.

Where is the above section duplicated? I find no reference to period performance without it. Hyacinth 03:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, Hyacinth. I've filled the gap and also added a redirect from Period performance. Opus33 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do these definitions come from? I think they are highly questionable. Albinoduck 13:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As the article history shows, they are a contribution (though later edited) of User:Wahoofive. I don't really know myself whether they are correct or incorrect. Perhaps Wahoofive can help by backing them up with reference sources? Opus33 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that I wrote those definitions based on my personal experience in the music field. A number of the websites I have looked at recently (e.g. [1] and [2]) say the word "authentic" has fallen into disuse, since it seems presumptuous; no one pretends anymore that there can be any definitive determination of the authenticity of particular usages. I agree that the definition of HIP I provided is too flippant; most people who say they are doing HIP are aiming for as close to authenticity as they can determine. By all means, edit them. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just rewritten the whole lead, adding references to period instruments and performance practice, and changing the opening to reflect that authentic, period and historically-informed performance are all synonyms, as seems to be evidenced by the discussion here. Perhaps a name change to historically informed performance, as many have suggested above, would still be best, but I defer to those more versed in early music than I. I also added an image. Comments welcome. --MarkBuckles 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This was just added to the article. I moved it here. This current page name may certainly not be the best. -- MarkBuckles 22:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Many would argue that the term "authentic performance" be avoided at all costs. The preferable terms in common usage amongst early music specialists, and especially the record labels, are "period instrument" or "historically-informed". The use of the word "authentic" connotes for some a certain "holier-than-thou" attitude, and many well-known musicians in the HIP movement, most notably Christopher Hogwood, have distanced themselves from the word.
More than any other aspect of the HIP movement, it is perhaps the use of the term "authentic" that has most enraged modern instrumentalists. Even today, some fifty or sixty years since the pioneering work of Wenzinger, Harnoncourt and others, there is still great animosity lurking about towards the HIP movement, and early music specialists would do well to be cognizant of that."

Sorry if I did the wrong thing by adding those paragraphs--I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks for moving them here, and I note that many others have voiced the same concern. You really should consider revision in light of the nomenclature problem.--Cbrodersen 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse changing the name of this article to Historically-informed performance or Period Music. The current name has many problems, as catalogued above. -- MarkBuckles 23:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Comments

Particularly in the area dealing with insturments, I take issue with many of your statements and would like to offer suggestions for improvement. Your original text is in bold face, my comments are in regular:

Many of the instruments of early music disappeared from widespread use, around the beginning of the Classical era.

This is a questionable statement at best. How many is “many”?—the most I can think of off the top of my head are the viol, harpsichord, cornetto and recorder. I think the sentence should be re-written as follows:

"While some earlier instruments disappeared from widespread use around the beginning of the time of the Viennese Classics, most others continued in use during the 19th century, albeit altered in their sound quality and playing characteristics."

good. text should probably mention the ones that disappeared. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the original wording is accurate. See List of period instruments. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the statement: "many of the instruments of the early music disappeared from widespread use around the beginning of the Classical era..." The implication here is that the "beginning of the Classical era" was some kind of watershed that caused instuments to go extincit--it most definitely was NOT, because many more continued in use, with modifications. Unless you can show facts that the "original wording" is accurate, I suggest that you leave it be.--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And just what do you mean by “early music”? After 1750? This needs to be defined, since period instruments have been used in the performance of music as late as the 20th century—the list of composers currently on CD includes Mahler, Vaughn-Williams, Schoenberg, even Samuel Barber!

This isn't relevant: by the time of these composers, the early music revival had begun. Why confuse readers by putting such matters into a survey article? Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that these composers be added to the discussion--I only mention them to show that the term "early music" is problematic and that "period instrument performance" can include the 20th century.--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Early music should be linked to the WP article of the same name if not already. Maybe it's better to say something like "while some instruments popular in the X-X hundreds" to avoid the contestable nomenclature. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Many harpsichords were destroyed–notoriously, they were used for firewood in the Paris Conservatory during Napoleonic times.

What does “notoriously” modify in this sentence? I rewrote the sentence as follows, to make it more understandable:

"Many harpsichords were destroyed–the most notorious instance being the use of the instruments at the Paris Conservatory for firewood during Napoleonic times."

This is a clear improvement. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Composers such as William Byrd, François Couperin, and J. S. Bach wrote for the harpsichord and not the piano, which was invented ca. 1700 and only widely adopted by about 1765.

William Byrd is not the best example, as he wrote primarily for the virginal. One should probably substitute one of a number of other 17th century names, such as Froberger, Frescobaldi, Chambonnières or d'Anglebert.

Also a clear improvement. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, the insertion of quibbles into a survey article. The virginals is unquestionable a species of harpsichord, both in terms of its mechanism of tone production and its sound. Also, a sensible encyclopedia uses relatively famous, rather than relative obscure, composers as its examples. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I submit that Froberger, Frescobaldi. Chambonnieres and d'Anglebert are better examples of harpsichord composers than Byrd. Although the virginal is indeed a type of harpsichord, it is much simpler than the double-manual instruments of the later 17th century, as is the technique and variety of sounds available. Also, these composers are more in the mainstream of the European literature, especially in the case of the two French composers, as their works heavily influenced the generation of French clavecinistes that followed. Byrd and the English virginalists, by contrast, are somewhat of a "dead end".--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The harpsichord was revived in the first half of the twentieth century by Wanda Landowska.

It would be more accurate to attribute the harpsichord revival to someone like Arnold Dolmetsch, since he was both a maker and player. Perhaps the sentence should be re-written as follows:

"The harpsichord was re-introduced to the concert-going public in the first half of the 20th by Wanda Landowska."

Agree again. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The recorder is a wind instrument, made of wood. Its tone is similar to the flute, but it is played by blowing through the end, rather than by blowing across a soundhole. Like viols, recorders were made in multiple sizes (contra-bass, bass, tenor, alto, soprano,the tiny sopranino and the even smaller kleine sopranino or garcloin).

The correct spelling is “garklein”.

Obvious fix. Although maybe there are alternative spellings? MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Was the garklein an authentic period instrument? I thought it was a more modern "extension" of the recorder family but I could be wrong. Bluewave 21:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Praetorius mentions the garklein. EldKatt (Talk) 21:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks. Bluewave 07:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Handel and Telemann wrote solo sonatas for the recorder, and recorders were often played in consorts of mixed size, like viols. For a number of important modern exponents of the recorder, see Recorder player.

There should be a distinction made between the consort music of the 16th and 17th centuries, written for the wide-bore “Renaissance” recorder, and the solo music of the Baroque, written for the smaller-bore “baroque” recorder. Baroque recorders were available only in a limited number of sizes.

Sounds good. Endorse fix. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This belongs in recorder, not in a survey article. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

By talking about solo sonatas of Telemann and consort music in the same sentence, the reader is apt to be confused. This needs to be corrected, or the detailed info left out altogether.--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Other instruments that ceased to be used around the same time as the harpsichord, viol, and recorder include the lute, the viola d'amore, and the baryton. Instruments that lost currency rather earlier in musical history include the cornett, the serpent, the shawm, the rackett, the krummhorn, the theorbo, and the hurdy-gurdy.

The theorbo (which is a type of lute) continued to be used throughout the 18th century as a continuo instrument. There is also a sizeable body of solo literature for the baroque lute dating from the latter years of the 18th century, by composers such as Kleinknecht, Kropfganz, Weiss, and even Haydn. It would be incorrect to say that the lute had died out by this time. As for the serpent, it persisted into the 19th century (believe it or not)--Mendelssohn and Berlioz included the serpent in some of their orchestral music.

Again, sounds good. Endorse fix. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"Serpent" should go. The words "around the same time" suffices for the remainder. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Theorbo and lute should also be removed, for the reasons stated. I'm not sure why the hurdy-gurdy is included--it's primarily a folk instrument.--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Even the instruments on which classical music is ordinarily performed today have undergone many important changes since the 18th century, both in how they are constructed and how they are played. Stringed instruments (the violin, viola, cello, and double bass) were made with progressively longer necks and higher bridges, increasing string length and tension. For the top E string of the violin, steel instead of gut is now ordinarily used. The result has been a more powerful and penetrating tone–but, perhaps, also a less sweet one. The most prized stringed instruments of today, made by Antonio Stradivari and by the Guarneri family in 17th-18th century Italy, started out their careers as "early instruments". They were modified in the 19th century to achieve the more powerful modern sound.

By citing the heavily-built instruments of Stradivari and Guarneri, you seem to be implying that they were the preferred insturments of the time. In fact, the more lightly-built instruments of the Amatis and Steiner were the “norm” in the 17th and 18th centuries—the instruments of Stradivari and his comtemporaries only gained favor after the swtich was made in the 19th century to heavier stringing and the new fingerboard and other “modern” fittings.

Fine. Fix. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This belongs in the history section of violin. The point at hand is to clear up a potential confusion on the part of readers, i.e. they may wonder why violins were different back then, when the most prestigious violins played by concert artists today are old ones. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The oboe likewise became more powerful in its sound, but as a result lost a certain amount of its character; it might be said that 18th century oboes sound more "oboelike" than their modern equivalents.

The term “oboelike” does not convey enough information for me. I might have said that the baroque oboe was more “pastoral” or "reedy", while the Classical oboe, which came to the fore c.1780, was more “silvery”.

"Oboelike" conveys nothing to be. Definitely endorse change. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"Pastoral/reedy" would be fine. The date 1780 seems premature, from what I've listened to. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all for the classical oboe (Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven).--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Early brass instruments were slightly less brilliant than their modern equivalents.

Oh? It’s more accurate to say that their tone was less powerful, but more “colorful” (containing more overtones).

Fix, as above. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The tonal difference is perhaps less than is found among the woodwinds and strings.

This is simply not true, particularly in the case of the natural trumpet.

Fix, as above. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by this claim, and can only ask that its author listen more carefully! Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen to what? I own a Meinl & Lauber natural trumpet (can't say I play it very well), so I know EXACTLY what it sounds like, plus I count among my friends Lowell Greer, America's greatest performer on the natural (hand) horn).--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

However, the playing of early trumpets and horns was very different and indeed much more difficult, since versions of these instruments incorporating keys or valves were only invented around the end of the 18th century.

The big difference between the baroque (natural) trumpet and the modern trumpet is that the former is roughtly twice as long as the latter. This means that the notes in the upper octave, the register favored by Bach and Handel, can only be sounded by “lip control” (to use your term). This is perhaps the most drastic change in playing technique among any the orchestral instruments. By contrast, horn technique remained relatively unchanged well into the 19th century. In fact, the hand horn continued to be specified by composers as late as Brahms. And note that valves were invented in 1815, but did not come into widespread use until mid-century. The keyed trumpet of Anton Weidinger, for which Haydn and Hummel wrote their concertos, was a short-lived experiment which quickly fell out of favor.

Fix, as above. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
All this material belongs in the history sections of the trumpet and horn; included here it would hopelessly bog down the discussion. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't propose including this material, I mention it to show that the generalizations on sound and playing technique are inaccurate.--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For the piano, the difference between 18th century and modern versions is probably greater than for any other instrument;

I disagree--the change in the trumpet (see above) is much more drastic. Actually, the evolution of the piano is a fairly gradual one, with many “in-between” models leading up to the iron-frame instruments of the latter 19th century.

This is an extraordinary claim. I'm really starting to wonder if its author has put in any time listening to the instruments in question! Opus33

Not only have I listened to them, I've built them as well (harpsichords, tracker organs and fortepianos). Which makes YOUR statements highly suspect.--Cbrodersen 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems like nit-picking, but these are fairly important issues in the field of Organology, and some (not all) of what you have written betrays a certain unfamiliarity with the subject. Perhaps what would help in the discussion of the instrumentarium of HIP is more facts, and fewer value judgements and generalizations. --Cbrodersen 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Value judgements have no place in wikipedia. They are often put in articles accidently by editors who don't realize their own value judgements at the time - this is usually forgivable, it just needs to be changed. I suggest referring to what "the article" says rather than what "you" wrote. Whoever originially created this article, it is now a frankenstein creation of many different editors over a large period of time. If something's wrong, please do fix it. The only reason your first edit was moved to the talk page was because it itself was also a value judgement. Your help and knowledge is welcome. MarkBuckles 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry about all the personal references ("what you wrote")--again, I'm new here and I didn't realize that the article was started by somebody else and that it has since become a "frankenstein creation" (great phrase!). I'll try to do a re-write in the next few days. Should I perhaps first try my revisions in the "sandbox"?--Cbrodersen 16:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a few options. You can use Wikipedia:Sandbox to test out what your formatting and markup will look like in general but I wouldn't advise really working on the page there. If you're going to be doing a lot of edits over a slightly longer period of time and want to finish all the edits before you change everything, you can create a temporary subpage at Authentic performance/revision. You can also just make small edits to the main article as you go along. You can always see what the page will look like before it is saved by clicking "Show preview" under the Edit box. You can change something, look at the preview, change something else, etc. That's usually what I do. You can even add the template {{Inuse}} to the top of the page so no one else will disturb the page while you're working on it. Hope this helps! --MarkBuckles 19:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If I may summarize my main point: when a survey article gets bogged down with unimportant detail, then it no longer can serve as a useful orientation to people who are new to the topic.
The strength of a web-based encyclopedia is that people who want more details can simply follow the links. Every new fact that Cbrodersen mentions (if correct) belongs in the specific article where it would be maximally useful and informative. Opus33 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have instituted a few of these uncontested changes. Still awaiting larger revisions from more knowledgable editors. MarkBuckles 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I have changed the name of this article from Authentic performance to Historically informed performance. All history and talk page is retained. Browsing through the talk page comments, there have been a large number of complaints about the name "Authentic", and no real support that I can find. "Historically informed" seems to be preferred. Hope this helps. Comments welcome.

The name "authentic" still appears throughout the article. I'm going to wait a bit before changing those and all the redirects in case there's any contention of the name change. User:Cbrodersen is welcome to and may also change the nomenclature in the article in the course of his proposed revisions. MarkBuckles 19:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR?

The following section appears to be original research. I've moved it here for comment. MarkBuckles 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authenticity or contemporary taste?

An issue in authentic performance that is seldom raised concerns just why performers want to be authentic. It might be argued that what authentic-performance participants want is not always authenticity per se, but particular benefits that come from authenticity, such as clarity, tonal vividness, and rhythmic propulsion. In fact, it is likely that musical tastes among classical music enthusiasts were already evolving in these directions even before the authentic performance movement had become a major factor.

In this connection, it is worth considering two clearly documented authentic performance practices of the past that have not been widely adopted today.

First, it is known from Mozart's correspondence that he was enthusiastic about the idea of performing his symphonies with very large orchestral forces, along the lines of 40 violins, with analogous numbers for the other instruments. Thus, the smaller size of Mozart's usual orchestra in the 18th century relative to modern symphony orchestras may well have been the result of economy, rather than a deliberate esthetic choice. Modern authentic performance orchestras, however, are characteristically small–even though for the more successful ones, funding would probably permit them to be larger, at least on occasion, were it considered desirable.

A second example concerns a matter of authentic performance for string music of the later 19th century. Sources suggest that at this time, most string players made heavy use of portamento–a sliding of the finger along the string that causes pitch to glide from one note to the next. Portamento is used sparingly in the performances of contemporary musicians, and there is evidently little wish on the part of authentic performance advocates to revive it.

The common factor of these two examples is that in each, adopting truly authentic performance practices would actually set back the goals of clarity, transparency, and rhythmic liveliness (large ensembles cannot synchronize their playing as easily as small ones can, and portamento blurs the boundary between one note and the next). This supports the view that the authentic performance movement exists in large part to satisfy musical tastes that were evolving in a particular direction in any event. To say this, of course, by no means devalues the importance or esthetic contributions of the movement.


>>>My apologies in advance for any formatting issues, as I am new to this.

To respond to the question "why performers want to be authentic", as a musician I would state that in a field where for every actual job there are hundreds of musicians competing for it, being different is a benefit. To work in the music industry in Los Angeles, it is not sufficient to merely to be a exemplary clarinetist, for instance. You are expected to not only be that clarinetist, but also a saxophonist, a flutist, as well as an oboist or bassoonist. In the business of music, the clarinetist will starve while the multi-instrumentalist will find work.

I see the 'Historically informed performance' movement not as a matter of changing tastes among the classical music enthusiasts (though that is a part of the equation) but a matter of musicians desperately attempting to find a niche among a glut of faceless colleagues. Thousands of musicians graduate from colleges and conservatories each year and realize the fact that jobs are not readily available in classical music. A musician wanting to play for a professional symphony orchestra eventually confronts the fact that they are resigned to wait until someone dies for a position to become available. The musician who takes up a 'historic' instrument, however, immediately differentiates himself by choosing the uncommon path. He becomes a specialist, with specialized knowledge, and a readily marketable commodity.

165.30.52.65 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)a musician in az

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistorically_informed_performance_cc6c.html"