The usual question... philology or not

RedScharlach wrote:

I will add that Bach did not know the piano, but surely... the piano knows Bach!

What I mean is that since the piano has existed, Bach has been played on its keyboard more than any other composer of his era (perhaps he rivaled Scarlatti during certain periods). In a sense, the sound of the piano was also "formed" on Bach.

And therefore (if you forgive my pun) the piano for Bach is not philological, but Bach for the piano is philological.

You are right... this reverse "philology" was formed, let's say, through custom... probably as the years went by there were more pianos than harpsichords around and perhaps having only a piano at one's disposal, one didn't want to go without Bach and played on this instrument, perhaps due to a lack of a harpsichord and perhaps because pianists from Bach onwards always played in salons on the same instrument.

The fact that, as Red says, the piano also developed based on Bach's music makes us think that it has always been taken for granted that harpsichord music can also be played on the piano.

The thing that has always made me think is the reason why this is only done with pieces for harpsichord. Other instruments are not treated this way.

What was played at the time, for example with the natural horn, today is still played with the horn—modern, but still a horn.

A part for natural horn from the 1600s is easily playable with a modern tenor trombone... the difference in timbre between a modern double horn and a tenor trombone is much less marked than that between harpsichord and piano.

Why then don't we use the trombone instead of the horn?

rstrauss wrote:

You are right ... this reverse "philology" was formed, let's say, out of habit ... probably as the years went by there were more pianos than harpsichords around and perhaps having only a piano available, one didn't want to miss out on Bach, so one played on this instrument, perhaps due to a lack of a harpsichord and perhaps because pianists from Bach onwards always played in salons on the same instrument.

The fact that, as Red says, the piano also developed based on Bach's music makes us think that it has always been taken for granted that harpsichord music can also be played on the piano.

The thing that has always made me think is the reason why it is only done with pieces for harpsichord. Other instruments are not treated this way.

What was played at the time, for example with the natural horn, today is always played with the modern horn, but still a horn.

A part for natural horn from the 1600s is easily playable with a modern tenor trombone ... the difference in timbre between a modern double horn and a tenor trombone is much less marked than that between harpsichord and piano.

Why then don't we use the trombone instead of the horn?

What can you tell me about Violone and cello instead? Anyway, from what I know, in bands, they don't have many scruples. If the range allows it, practice already provides for performances of parts with different instruments... without distorting the sense of a piece; on the contrary, sometimes there are happy intuitions

oki then what do you tell me about the arpeggione or the viola da gamba? since we are at it I ask you regarding the arpeggione, there are also very few compositions I believe, right?

antares86 wrote:

.

For now, I will not express an opinion

antares86 wrote:

great, I like the direction this is all taking^^

At this point, however, it would also be interesting to know your point of view. No?

@danielescarpetti in short, I think like Strauss except for Mozart on the fortepiano

Stradivari wrote:

What can you tell me about Violone and cello instead? Anyway, from what I know, in a band, they don't have many scruples. If the range allows it, practice already provides for performances of parts with different instruments... without distorting the sense of a piece; on the contrary, sometimes there are happy intuitions.

The reality of bands is a bit different ... in most cases, the use of instruments is dictated by the availability of performers, and therefore does not fall within our discussion, even though you are right ... in these realities, if the range allows it, anything is used.

... I read with pleasure that no one has answered me regarding "which harpsichord" to play Bach on"

@ frank why not a clavichord then? obviously for home performance.... personally if I had to choose I would prefer a Flemish harpsichord...

ideally responding also to Frank and the question about bands, namely on "which instrument to use to play any composer"... whichever comes to mind :-)

explaining...

let's list the possibilities in the field:

1) I play Vattelappescolo (a Baroque composer who has kindly made himself available for simulation) on an instrument from an era different from that in which Vattelappescolo lived;

2) I play Vattelappescolo on an instrument from the era in which he lived and from the area where he worked;

3) I play Vattelappescolo on an instrument from the era in which he lived and from an area where he did NOT work.

Tall three possibilities are legitimate.

1) See Gould and Bach, and not only them; many ancient and modern repertoires have a tradition of transcriptions, and few compositions were written thinking specifically of one instrument. Or rather, even if the compositions had a close relationship with their own instrument, it was widespread practice to perform them in transcription or, for the same composer, to prepare different versions. These practices are more present in certain eras, but since we follow "TODAY'S" practice, then conceptually it would be enough to say that today it is possible to perform Vattelappescolo on a Hammond organ without anyone dying.

2) the more obvious version. Vattelappescolo with the sounds of his era.

3) more than legitimate version, Vattelappescolo played by an unknown contemporary Finn who, during his travels, transcribed a performance heard in Busto Arsizio. In reality, it could be an interesting starting point, which I believe is consistent with today's historiographical trends.

thallo wrote:

ideally responding also to Frank and the question about bands, namely on "which instrument to use to play any composer"... whichever happens :-)

explaining...

let's list the possibilities in the field:

1) I play Vattelappescolo (a Baroque composer who has kindly made himself available for simulation) on an instrument from an era different from that in which Vattelappescolo lived;

2) I play Vattelappescolo on an instrument from the era in which he lived and from the area where he operated;

3) I play Vattelappescolo on an instrument from the era in which he lived and from an area where he did NOT operate.

Tall three possibilities are legitimate.

1) See Gould and Bach, and not only them, many ancient and modern repertoires have a tradition of transcriptions, and few compositions were written thinking specifically of one instrument. Or rather, even if the compositions had a close relationship with their own instrument, it was widespread practice to perform them in transcription or, for the same composer, to prepare different versions. These practices are more present in certain eras, but since we follow "TODAY'S" practice, then conceptually it would be enough to say that today it is possible to perform Vattelappescolo on a Hammond organ without anyone dying.

2) the more obvious version. Vattelappescolo with the sounds of his era.

3) more than legitimate version, Vattelappescolo played by an unknown contemporary Finn who, during his travels, transcribed a performance heard in Busto Arsizio. In reality, it could be an interesting starting point, which I believe is consistent with today's historiographical trends.

Option no. 4 is missing ...

4) I play Vattelappescolo on the modern instrument corresponding to the instrument for which the piece was written.

What that means is that I play our composer's piece on a modernly constructed harpsichord, which can be a standard or double harpsichord, perhaps depending on the environment where I play, respecting the original idea without distorting the way the piece sounds and using a modernly constructed instrument that will surely be better than an era instrument.

Perhaps I see things from another point of view, but thinking about how the composer conceives the piece, I would not feel comfortable using different instruments.

It would be like in an orchestra using, for example, viola and clarinet instead of violin and clarinet ... it would sound different, even if it wouldn't be quite that serious since it is still two strings ... or, as often happens today, the tenor trombone instead of the alto, which would be even less serious since they are two instruments of the same family.

A different case would be one that happened to me in one of our past workshops, precisely in the one for the Christmas Mass.

Among the people who had seen the scores, the possibility of performing my Gloria with the organ instead of the piano was suggested to me, since it is always a keyboard instrument (so the person said).

I responded categorically no ... I would not have been able to listen to that piece on the organ because it would have "sounded" too different from my original idea.

So by extension, not being able to ask Vattelappescolo, I would try to perform the piece on an instrument as close as possible to the original one.

The only exception to this "pseudo-rule" (entirely mine, of course) is the case in which the composer himself made a transcription of the piece for other instruments ... let's just say that arbitrarily using an instrument very different from the original would seem to me a sort of imposition on the composer, and certainly piano and harpsichord are very different in sound, dynamics, touch, etc.

It is also good to remember that there is a substantial difference between clavichord/harpsichord technique and piano technique ... it is difficult for a great harpsichord performer to also be one on the piano and vice versa, simply due to a physical issue.

The case of Rossini's Petite Messe Solennelle is emblematic: Rossini himself made the transcription for orchestra (originally for 2 pianos and harmonium), knowing that sooner or later someone would do it and not being able to bear the idea that someone else would lay hands on it, perhaps obtaining results far from his original idea.

Tantamount to say, the original version of this mass is decidedly better than the one with the orchestra.

I am playing devil's advocate against myself, pointing out "holes"... I mean...

talking about Vattelappescolo, who died in 1685, or talking about Rossini, who died in 1868, or talking about Cilea, who died in 1950, drastically changes our possibilities of "justifying" interpretative choices. Vattelappescolo holds up to the end regarding re-transcription, free improvisation, pastiche, and so on. With my choir, I sang Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" (late 1600s) and the ensemble accompanying us always varied everything that was written, reasoning "in loops," meaning adding freely 8-bar harmonic loops or whatever was necessary to allow certain scenic actions to take place. Rossini can sustain a series of actions, but not the same ones I could perform with Vattelappescolo. I can replace strings with wind instruments in the cadenza written by Vattelappescolo, but I cannot do the same in the orchestration of Guillaume Tell. However, I can add half an hour of cadenza, cut entire scenes from his operas, insert arias from other works, creating a sort of pastiche here as well, varying words in the libretto, improvising during recitatives, even heavily. Cilea is a completely different world.

Different perspectives should make us reflect not only on the music of various periods but also on OUR attitude toward the role of the author. Over the centuries, "art" music has increasingly become the exclusive property of authors, of composers. It wasn't like that once; it was much more a group creation (with the usual caveats). All this is, paradoxically, anti-philological. That is, "philologists," who generally profess the superior original will of the author, often misunderstand the role of the author in different eras.

I have read the developments of the topic with great interest, but I have a question. Does anyone like hearing the "wrong" notes of the timpani indicated, for example, by Verdi? Shouldn't a philological performance also respect these aspects?

thallo wrote:

Different perspectives should make us reflect not only on the music of various periods but also on OUR attitude towards the role of the author. Over the centuries, "art" music has increasingly become the exclusive property of authors, of composers. It wasn't like this once; it was much more a group creation (with the necessary caveats). All of this is, paradoxically, anti-philological. That is, "philologists," who generally profess the superior original will of the author, often misunderstand the role of the author in different eras.

True, but if you think about it, this is completely normal precisely because we have centuries of music behind us and we see things through the lens of our own century.

Of course, composers of the 1600s were probably more permissive than today, but there remains an undeniable fact: in my opinion, playing a piece with other instruments, even very different from the originals, is misleading because, quite simply, it is not the original.

I couldn't imagine Haydn's Trumpet Concerto played on the clarinet, or Weber's clarinet concerto played on an English horn (texture permitting), or worse, one of Mozart's horn concertos played by a trombone... or using clarinets instead of basset horns in the Masonic Funeral Music... and so on.

Be that as it may, you can do whatever you want, but from here to legitimizing a certain performance practice, for me, it will take a lifetime.

I would add that I agree to play Bach on the piano only for educational purposes because I recognize it is an irreplaceable technique, but that's where it ends.

I must make a distinction between music and theater: theater is a much less perfect subject than music... in theater, improvisation is much more widespread than one might think, whereas it is not so in music.

In general, I truly believe that original instruments sound very differently from those of today, so the fact that an instrument is called a trumpet means nothing other than the fact that at some point that instrument existed under that name. For example, Haydn writes in the period when the trumpet had crooks... I don't know if you know what that means or if you have ever heard one

In general, I renew the invitation to attend to early music.

rstrauss wrote:

The case of Rossini's petite Messe Solennelle is emblematic: Rossini himself made the transcription for orchestra (originally for 2 pianos and harmonium), knowing that sooner or later someone would do it and not being able to bear the idea that someone else would lay hands on it, perhaps obtaining results far from his original idea.

Do you happen to have a source regarding this hypothesis?

,

In general, it seems to me that the reasoning relies on a philological idea while ignoring the organological aspect of the instruments.

Just as the cello was born from the viol through the change to wound strings, the piano is an evolution of the harpsichord, and it is precisely Cristofori's piano that tells us this. Comparing the two mechanisms (pf/harpsichord), the defunctionalization of the jack is evident in the piano; this already tells us a lot about the evolutionary path of the instrument. In reality, all the harpsichord mechanisms serving sound production are almost unchanged in the pf, and particularly in the idea that originated them (to be clear, the piano is not a new instrument, it is the application of the same principles as a harpsichord in a different context), so the transition from harpsichord to piano should be easy, for the most hardened philologists, just like replacing a natural trumpet with a modern trumpet, or replacing a viol with a cello.

In your opinion, RStrauss, is playing a keyed trumpet used by Haydn technically the same as playing a modern one? In general, the harpsichord-piano issue seems to me to be a healthy but gratuitous moralism, made up of many alibis (which do not hold). To be clear, either the criterion is applicable/applied to all families of instruments, or it cannot be valid.

Furthermore, the instrument is only a fraction of what should be done following the reasoning of these hardened philologists, who, for that matter, preach well but practice poorly. And in effect, it cannot be otherwise because some things are practically unachievable today due to the cultural stratification that the human ear has undergone over the centuries and which faces a (purely hypothetical) philological performance.

Therefore, I enjoy my Bach on the piano, Beethoven on the Steinway & Sons grand coda, but being a lover of art, I can enjoy the same music with (only) hypothetically original instruments.

rstrauss wrote:

True, but if you think about it, this is quite normal precisely because we have centuries of music behind us and we see things through the lens of our own century.

First thing I don't agree with. Today our mindset is adaptable; in fact, there are many different mindsets, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about what is right, beautiful, or not.

Of course, 17th-century composers were probably more permissive than today, but it remains an undeniable fact: playing a piece with other instruments, even very different from the originals in my opinion, is misleading because, quite simply, it is not the original.

I am on the side of clear and straightforward things, but adjectives like "permissive," "undeniable," "original," or "misleading" are all highly debatable. At this point in the discussion, it's a bit difficult to get out of it with a "well, but we all know that's not how it is" :-) many of the things you say have strong counter-arguments. I don't know, there is no single value of originality; there are wonderful historical inaccuracies; the fact that 17th-century composers were more permissive could easily lead us to say that even this permissiveness is part of the "original" or the ideal we seek; performances are not divided into misleading and truthful; they are not mathematical propositions.

I couldn't imagine Haydn's Trumpet Concerto played on the clarinet, or Weber's Clarinet Concerto played on an English horn (range permitting), or worse, one of Mozart's horn concertos played by a trombone... or using clarinets instead of basset horns in the Masonic Funeral Music... and so on.

even the way you talk about it screams that you aren't talking about philology but about personal taste. And there is nothing wrong with that. But we are precisely talking about taste. Frank brings historical organology issues to the table, but we could bring many others, all things that could be part of the ideal original composition: the concert hall in which those things were played, the degree of precision regarding the indications in the score, the historical differences in tempo and dynamics...

I must make a distinction between music and theater: theater is a much less perfect subject than music... in theater improvisation is much more widespread than one thinks, whereas it is not in music.

lightning bolts might shoot from my eyes here because this statement sounds a bit like a Romantic composer who scorns theatrical music... Trying to be impartial, I say no; musical theater, since it involves so many people, cannot afford improvisation. It is the soloist who allows themselves improvisation, and this is a crucial clarification because in the history of music EVERY soloist can allow themselves a degree of improvisation. There are few instances where a singer can improvise; generally, these are variations that do not change the harmonic and rhythmic nature of a piece, precisely because the singer is almost always accompanied by someone. On the other hand, I recall how a crushing percentage of the Baroque keyboard repertoire is the result of improvisation, how dance music from every era is widely improvised, and how improvisation and imperfection are terms that have no obvious links to each other.

Returning to the subject of the theater, often and quite willingly the "band" parts of operas were left blank. For this reason, we are used to hearing works by Verdi arranged by others. And Verdi was not the only composer who used this practice. Furthermore, regarding the previously mentioned timpani, in the 1800s percussion parts were often arranged by the band and not indicated in the score by the composer. Among other things, this was different from what happened in French music.

In effect, like Thallo, I think that often some comments are driven by taste; the problem always arises when taste insists on being justified by premises that have little to do with objectivity. What is wrong with writing: "I like Bach on the harpsichord and not on the piano"? It would be more than anything else if this were a problem. Instead, saying that Bach on the piano is not philologically correct (reading between the lines, "I don't like it") has quite different implications; and then what would be the consequential correlation "right --> beautiful --> art"?. At this point, it would be nice to actually discuss the process of the harpsichord's transformation in relation to the historical, social, terminological context (even of the scores), etc., to understand what would be best to do. This is all assuming that, whether we like it or not, we are no longer in Cristofori's time.

And perhaps many do not know that Cristofori's instrument (I am obviously not talking about prototypes but the more definitive ones) — or those of his students Giovanni Ferrini or Domenico Del Mela — was more of a piano than those later produced during the Romantic era according to a German fashion that proposed a mechanism lacking fundamental parts already foreseen by Cristofori, but which were not included for strictly economic and complexity reasons (they did not understand what they were for) and were only rediscovered later.

So, what instrument did Schumann have at his disposal? Just, so as to be precise.

Frank wrote:

Do you happen to have a source regarding this hypothesis?

I was discussing it with a musicologist during a performance in my area and he maintained this.

I don't know if an official source exists, but he is not the only one who maintains it.

I will try to look for it.

Frank wrote:

In general, it seems to me that the reasoning relies on a philological idea, ignoring the organological aspect of the instruments.

According to you, RStrauss, is playing a keyed trumpet used by Haydn technically the same as playing a modern one? In general, the harpsichord vs. piano issue seems to me to be a healthy but gratuitous moralism, made up of many alibis (that don't hold up). To be clear, either the criterion is applicable/applied to all families of instruments, or it cannot be valid.

Surely the keyed trumpet is different from our piston trumpet, just as our slide trombone is different from a piston trombone. Haydn's trumpet and the modern one are certainly more similar than the piano and harpsichord, whose sound is truly different in timbre, dynamics, and resonance, if not at least for the different mechanics of plucked vs. struck... and then there is the technique for playing the two instruments.

If you play the piano with a clavichord/harpsichord technique, you will have a sound without weight or depth, whereas if you play a harpsichord with a pianistic technique, besides detuning the instrument within 20 minutes, you will always have a sound that is too heavy.

An old trumpet and a modern trumpet will always have lips that produce the basic harmonic sounds, which are then modified by the mechanics, but the starting point is always the same.

Now that I am also studying the trombone (for 4 months), I have been able to verify this thing by picking up some old-fashioned band flugelhorns. Different instrument, different mouthpiece, different mechanics... but the rest is always the same.