Talk:Historically informed performance

'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)

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 anythinOpinions on the authentic performance movement vary widely, from very strong support to very strong opposition.

A generally skeptical but moderated position has been taken by Charles Rosen, a distinguished traditional classical musician and author on music. One criticism Rosen has made is that the spread of authentic performance has depended very heavily on the recording industry. This results from two factors. First, the lower volume of authentic performance instruments means they tend to be ineffective in large modern concert halls, so that live performance is difficult to sustain financially. Second, the unstable intonation and lesser reliability of early instruments means that a high-quality performance is most easily obtained in the recording studio, where multiple takes can be spliced together to iron out mistakes, and it is possible to interrupt the music frequently to retune the instruments. A musical culture based predominantly on recordings is arguably an impoverished one, given that most listeners respond more intensely to a live performance than to a recording.

There are many listeners who enjoy both authentic performance and traditional performance. Such esthetically-flexible listeners might, for instance, enjoy Malcolm Bilson's vivid and stylish authentic performances of Haydn's piano sonatas on a replica 18th century piano, but also enjoy Vladimir Horowitz's interestingly idiosyncratic (and quite heavily pedaled) performances of the same works on a modern concert grand.g 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)Opinions on the authentic performance movement vary widely, from very strong support to very strong opposition.

A generally skeptical but moderated position has been taken by Charles Rosen, a distinguished traditional classical musician and author on music. One criticism Rosen has made is that the spread of authentic performance has depended very heavily on the recording industry. This results from two factors. First, the lower volume of authentic performance instruments means they tend to be ineffective in large modern concert halls, so that live performance is difficult to sustain financially. Second, the unstable intonation and lesser reliability of early instruments means that a high-quality performance is most easily obtained in the recording studio, where multiple takes can be spliced together to iron out mistakes, and it is possible to interrupt the music frequently to retune the instruments. A musical culture based predominantly on recordings is arguably an impoverished one, given that most listeners respond more intensely to a live performance than to a recording.

There are many listeners who enjoy both authentic performance and traditional performance. Such esthetically-flexible listeners might, for instance, enjoy Malcolm Bilson's vivid and stylish authentic performances of Haydn's piano sonatas on a replica 18th century piano, but also enjoy Vladimir Horowitz's interestingly idiosyncratic (and quite heavily pedaled) performances of the same works on a modern concert grand.

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)

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)

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)

OR?

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

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

I'd have thought no serious musician or music-lover nowadays would question the rightness of performing early music on period instruments, just as they wouldn't question the rightness of performing Stravinky on 20th-century instruments. There may still be a grey area in the 19th century. Tony (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Taruskin has argued that HIP is really just another trend in contemporary performance. His articles have been influential so that I propose summarizing them in the "Issues" section (of course adding citations as well). But I pProbably won't get to it before next week. -- kosboot (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This article needs more references

Much of this article, although informative and generally well written, reads like a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It would benefit enormously from from inline citations to show that the points being made are not just the opinions of the Wikipedia editors who contributed to it, but are supported by references in accordance with Wikipedia's attribution policy. I would also suggest that the article consistently use "historically informed performance" rather than "authentic performance" or whatever (except in the intro where the various alternate names are defined). "Authentic performance" has its own POV problems. In fact I might just make that change now. Grover cleveland 05:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

Just a drive-by comment, but it seems that the last section on historical performance "issues" needs a major overhaul. The "benefits" list doesn't seem to need citations every sentence (as are currently marked as needed) as much as it needs to have some of the POV and ambiguous claims edited out (e.g., HIP instruments sound "more beautiful" to some listeners??... of course that's true, but it doesn't really give a specific NPOV aesthetic benefit). Anyhow, it would be better to edit this and include a citation or two (or at least a reference section) that mentions a couple sources that talk about these benefits. The benefits themselves seem common enough claims by HIP afficionados, so it doesn't seem that there needs to be detailed citation of every one of these claims.

As for the "variety of opinion" section -- there needs to be some real discussion of the actual scholarly, aesthetic, philosophical issues about HIP, rather than an odd citation of Charles Rosen's opinion. Which, by the way, isn't the best argument... yes, HIP performances don't often work well in huge halls, but if you're paying 100 orchestral performers in a 2,000-seat hall or 10 period performers in a 200-seat church, there isn't such a huge discrepancy in financial support needed. And, as for the second criticism, this was a major problem in performance 20 or 30 years ago or more, but as more performers have adopted period instruments as their primary instrument, the relative reliability of performance standards has increased. Period instruments still are often more unreliable, but most of the live period performances by professional ensembles I've heard in the past decade have rivaled any performance on modern instruments in terms of quality. Moreover, modern instrumental performance was impacted by recordings long before HIP came around -- the remnants of performance practice before 1920 or so in recordings shows that the ability to do multiple takes and the ways to craft performances had a major impact on the way players played. Recording technology, like it or not, has shaped performance practice for decades before HIP.

Anyhow, Rosen's opinions are still fine to include, but what about having a bit of discussion of the problem of selecting whose scholarly opinion (or what historical source) to use as the basis for period performance? Or what about the issue of continuously evolving standards of performance... we don't expect that a new conductor will interpret a Beethoven symphony the same way as the previous conductor -- so isn't it possible that some part of a new interpretation could involve modified instruments or new instruments? Or must we be chained to the score? And who determines which score is *the* score? And how do we decide about all the things that aren't in the score and aren't specified in contemporary treatises, etc.? Do those choices sometimes overwhelm the scant material we actually have in historical treatises (particularly in medieval performance)? Or, to go even deeper into aesthetic issues, is there necessarily a value in seeking to recreate an acoustical event as close to something that happened in the past as possible, even when audience members won't be able to listen with the ears of historical listeners? How do we know that our aesthetic experience of Horowitz playing a modern concert grand isn't actually more like the aesthetic experience of a historical listener hearing it on a fortepiano or harpsichord, just because our ears are differently attuned to the modern piano than these older instruments? The acoustical experience is different, but the quality of the aesthetic experience and our ability to relate to it... well, we can't really know how a historical listener experienced it. Some of the supposed "benefits" of HIP listed could be artifacts more of the way HIP ensembles choose to perform beyond what they know about period performance, rather than benefits from the instruments and often vague historical accounts. People who listen to early recordings (pre-1930 or so) often have disdain for the performance practices of that time, even when they were performing music that was written roughly in that period... I know I've often heard modern listeners (even fairly educated classical listeners) say that an early recording had poor performers or poor performance standards even when the "defects" of that recording are often due to performance practice of that time... how do we reconcile reactions like this with the goals of HIP?

Etc. These are just a few suggestions of possible topics that could be considered. Right now the "issues" section only gives us a vague and somewhat POV perspective on benefits and a woefully incomplete picture of possible criticisms/other issues. 24.147.123.214 05:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with a lot of this. This article has had a lot of citation flags for some time. As pointed out in the last comment, a lot of it just needs to be edited, rather than requiring citations every sentence. (For example, "Musical students have, over the centuries, learned ways of playing and interpreting music from their teachers, and from performers that they heard.[citation needed]" Really? We need a citation to prove that music students have learned ways of playing and interpreting music from their teachers? Isn't that asking for a citation of the definition of "teacher" and "student"? And particularly if they haven't had formal training (but even if they have), surely music students learn about how to perform music by listening to performances. This is like asking for a citation of a statement that barely goes beyond tautological. There are a few other "citation needed" flags that are similarly problematic, and many others that need editing more than the introduction of dozens of references.) Of course, there are places that citations are needed, but since many of these flags haven't been changed in while, perhaps the first step is some basic editing to get rid of POV and bad writing. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. In terms of the number of citation and weasel word flags it contains, this article is a disgraceful mess, and the people responsible for scattering flags all over an article that they disagree with should be ashamed of themselves and should refrain from further editing on Wikipedia. If you think a citation is missing and you can provide it, you provide it. If you think a statement is unsupportable, you cut it. If you think something is weasel wording, you fix the wording. That is the behaviour of a responsible user. What the enemies of this article have done is to irresponsibly and lazily spray their contempt all over it without bothering to get down to the serious work of making it better, which I think is despicable behaviour. There are some statements where a citation is needed, and if I could provide one I would, but I am not an expert in this subject. In the meantime I entirely agree that this article is in dire need of attention from somebody who is reasonably neutral on the subject of period performance and that the most glaring flag-stickers should be warned off and blocked from editing this article, if necessary. Lexo (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This more or less dispassionate editor just had a quick look, and I'll go so far as to say there isn't a single justified weasel tag in the whole article. Prefacing something with "usually" is far from weaselry, and the one at the "players of early trumpets and horns" is pretty egregious in its um, unfitness. I'm going to get rid of them all, and will be standing by to revert any drive-by tagging in days to come. You want the tag to stick, please discuss it here, at least a little. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also pruning the {{citation needed}} tags. Tagging a prefatory sentence is silly, when there are specifics mentioned immediately afterwards, subject to their own tags. Some tags seem frivolous and nit-picking of what ought to be uncontroversial assertions, leading me to suspect the motivation for the whole lot. Again, you want the tag to stick, please discuss it here, at least a little. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To Lexo: Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors. Confine your comments to the content, not the editor. For example, "the people responsible ... should be ashamed of themselves and should retrain from further editing"; "enemies of this article"; "irresponsibly"; "lazily"; "despicable behavior"; etc. I don't know whether you are the person who originally wrote much of the material that was flagged, but even if you are, please try to keep focused on the task of improving the encyclopedia, not on personal feelings. That way we can all make Wikipedia a better place. You may also want to check out WP:V and WP:NOCITE for Wikipedia's policies on citations and verifiability. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, so I have boldly removed most of the unsupported claims, some of which have been carrying flags since April 2007. Some of the material—perhaps even most of it—may be correct, but the end effect was like a personal essay containing mainly original research. Before someone flies off the handle here, all of this material is recoverable from the edit history. However, I suggest that no item be returned to this article without a reference source being added to support the claim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

One big step towards a better article. There is no deadline. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started picking away at it, restoring some uncontroversial text in the Recorder section, which may help form a basis for a decent article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good start. I had two very small quibbles with the "uncontroversial" part, but it shouldn't require a source (just don't get me started on historical recorder sizes, and in particular Praetorius's gar klein Flötlein, which isn't a recorder at all). I agree that there is no deadline, but nearly three years is ridiculous, and it really shouldn't take as much as three months to find verification for at least some of those claims.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Devastating a page in the name of cleanup

Yesterday, on a very non-controversial topic (paraphrased literature), I asked -in good faith- for a reference to modern paraphrasing of historic text, as the practice of paraphrasing in modern language is very specific to selected cultural areas. E.g., in my native Italy, we have always taken the opposite approach to paraphrasing, by reading Dante (who wrote in medieval Florentine dialect, the precursor of Italian) in the medieval text from a very early age, by inserting the Divine Comedy in the obligatory secondary school curriculum. Paraphrases of Dante are indeed available, as a side market for school "cheat sheets". Some commenting and referencing on the cultural values of modern reinterpretation, both positive (many) and negative (a few) may have added to the overall HIP article.

On this HIP page, a regular contributor, who signs under the name of Jerome Kohl, rather than adding a secondary source to the practice and, maybe, some comments, has flooded the page with an unrealistic number of primary sources, diluting the real references in, essentially, a sea of SPAM. What should a Wikipedia reader looking for references on HIP do, in that sea of references to Anons, Chaucer et al he added?

Now, there exists a Jerome Kohl who is an accomplished and respected musicologist. We cannot know if User:Jerome Kohl and Jerome Kohl, musicologist, are indeed the same person. If they are not, this is a sad use of another person's name. If they are, this is even more sad. Everybody (including academics such as myself, as I am not immune from this) skips references. We even, at times, use unclear statements and weasel words, especially when in good faith attempting to rescue a poorly written article yet containing good ideas. However, only some devastate a Wikipedia page when they are found out. Pride can be a bad advisor and, from a person who posts on his Wikipedia User page that he belongs to the academic world, feeling above criticism to the point of devastating a Wikipedia page when a mere, single, "reference needed" tag to his assertions is added, is squalid. Even more so when all his recent activity on Wikipedia, documented by the unforgiving record Wikipedia keeps, consists in deleting content and adding derogatory tags, without a single positive or constructive contribution.

I would really like to find a substantial contribution to the HIP page from Jerome Kohl, the musicologist, as this would help in qualifying a Wikipedia article, on an important topic, grown out of the wild with good intentions and poor structure, where some authoritative editing might contribute. I do believe that a contributor that has edited Wikipedia 32,000 times in 6+ years (i.e., 16 times a day on average) may have some time to spare for his authoritative and constructive contribution. But, alas, his last few interventions were not contributions, let alone constructive, at all.

Or (let's give this option, for sheer mercy) the user Jerome Kohl may well not be, at the end, the musicologist he declares on his user profile. --HarpsiMario (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a {{Cn}} tag was placed on the statement that "As in literature, where early poetry or prose is often re-written in modern language (e.g., Beowulf, the writings of Chaucer, and Gawain and the Green Knight)," the phrase I had added (or, to be more precise, had reversed from the previous, opposite and entirely incorrect claim that this is never done) and which I assumed was the one being challenged. I should have read more carefully, in which case I would have noticed it had been recast to say something quite different. I have no idea what a 'paraphrasis' is, but I can look it up, and assume it means a paraphrase. If this is the claim requiring support, then all of my work has been for nothing, because none of those sources are paraphrases, they are all translations. They should therefore all be removed, and the demand for a source reinstated, since this new claim has not been demonstrated. Second, they are in no way advertisements for the books in question, many of which have been out of print for decades, or even centuries. The allegation of spam is therefore outrageous and unfounded. Third, I do not see how a secondary source better certifies the original claim than examples do (keeping in mind that it was the original, and not the substitute claim I thought I was being asked to verify). Fourth, I am who I am, and I am who my user page says I am. I have no way of forcing you to believe this if you choose not to do so. Fifth, and finally, in future kindly refrain from making personal attacks. It not only casts a bad light on your own credibility, but is also counter to Wikipedia guidlines, such as WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith, which I recommend you read.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a paraphrasis is a paraphrase. The two terms are interchangeable. I have edited it to your preferred version. I hope this helps. When it comes to translating a medieval to modern version of the same language, the border between paraphrasis and metaphrasis becomes blurred (Fisher RW, Medieval German literature in modern German translation: A survey of some recent practices, with some comments on their rationale, Babel 44(2) 1998:110-127). Primary sources are unsuited for encyclopaedic articles, as underpinning original research. Do not misunderstand me. I agree with your statement. However, a secondary source (typically, a review) would strengthen it, and be more appropriate (see Wikipedia:No original research sub primary, secondary and tertiary sources). I have added the very same reference above, removing the primary call to examples, as a suitable review reference is available. Yes, I apologise for the personal attack. Next time, I will flag the editing for vandalisation, as appropriate by Wikipedia rules when an article is voluntarily made illegible. HarpsiMario (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apology, but would also urge caution in slapping a vandalism claim on possibly good faith edits with which you happen to disagree. Adding (perhaps over-copious) references is scarcely the same thing as "adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page" (examples of typical traits of vandalism, cited at the guideline page on the subject). Returning the focus to the specific passage in the article, I fail to understand the point of the analogy (and I have marked it as "vague" for that reason). This is as true for the demonstrably false claim that Beowulf is always read in its original Old English as it is for the (true but awaiting second-party confirmation) claim that it is often translated or annotated. I do not see what relevance this has for HIP musical practice. I have never heard of an "original instrument" performance being "simultaneously translated" into modern instrumental practice (perhaps over headphones, as languages are translated at the United Nations, for example?), nor can I imagine why such a thing would be helpful or necessary. Perhaps it was just an ill-considered analogy that would be best removed entirely, for it seems to me that it can only perplex the reader, rather than help in understanding the problems faced by the performer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with the removal of the analogy. I am partially responsible for it, as it came up in reducing further chaos in the page. I still believe that the whole article suffers from much more severe problems than a vague sentence, or a reference lacking a page number. Currently, it feels like a "stream of consciousness" set of ideas, and I believe the main issues to lie in the lack of a coherent structure. It would take the courage (and time!) of a reviewer with a sufficiently neutral point of view, sufficient knowledge of the field, sufficient time (the most complex prerequisite) and willing to set a framework, to elaborate on it, to gather the ideas already present -if within the framework-, as some are good, and to re-write the article.

Incidentally, NPOV should not be an issue. HIP is a fact, and as a fact it should be treated. When I started building harpsichords, in the late 1980s, early music practice was still considered esoteric, let alone building instruments. Today, even at their very beginning, conservatory students are expected to be historically-aware, studies on HIP are entering into high levels of refinement and the improved standards and expectations on HIP have probably outdated the issue of hiding incompetence behind esoterism, while the discussion has shifted towards understanding the role of HIP -now a respected discipline and an essential knowledge base for any musician- within the greater picture of musical expression and meaning (but I do not need to tell you this, I believe).

Incidentally, about disagreeing with you, do not misunderstand me. I disagree with flagging countless details when the general picture is flawed. And I believe a musicologist's contribution should be towards defining such picture. Page numbers are better left to a second stage, when the framework is solid, otherwise they end up constituting irrelevant -and irritating- time dedicated nitpicking and looking up page numbers instead of structuring ideas. When I submit an article to a refereed scientific journal, it is normally rejected if the structure is flawed, and accepted with requests for corrections if the details need to be refined. I disagree with the opposite attitude, as I believe academics should not behave like bank clerks (with no disrespect for the bank clerks, who should not behave like academics). And, with all respect, if the time you dedicated to flooding the article with references to Chaucer had been dedicated to consolidating concepts, this would now be a better article.HarpsiMario (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that the overall structure of this article is very poor, and needs attention more urgently than details. Still, if detailed elements are introduced which are contrary to fact, they cannot be tolerated simply because there are larger issues that take priority. Musicologists tend to be more attentive to details than is always desirable. HIP is of course a fact, and where I com from has not been regarded as "esoteric" since the early 1970s. Conservatory students, on the other hand, are still today seldom expected to be historically aware in my country, though the approach has long been held honourable in select institutions. However, this is not of particular concern to the present article. Let us try, together, to improve it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In the "Issues" section

It says, "Incorporating in the performance cultural elements of the composer, as opposed to omitting them in total favour of the listener's culture, results in a stronger and deeper performance rendition."

What exactly does this mean? What is a stronger performance rendition? A deeper performance rendition? "Deeper" in what way? How is it measured, what is it compared to. This sounds a lot like the puffery I would expect to read on a record company's album sleeve.

2601:9:2780:1E3:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Pretty much the whole "issues" section suffers from buzzwords, half-expressed thoughts, out-of-context quotes, and incoherent paragraphs. It might be helpful to separate the concepts of "issues" (such as uncertainty about what original performances were really like) from philosophical disagreements (e.g. how much weight to give to replicating performance practices of the past vs expectations of modern audiences). —Wahoofive (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is written without citations, so it probably is just taken from CD booklets and fawning articles. I've wanted to incorporate some of what Taruskin says (namely that HIP is a 20th century idea). but I'd have to rewrite the article. ;) -- kosboot (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not look to me that the article is entirely without citations. The section under discussion, however, does indeed represent some sort of pinnacle of awfulness, and various incomprehensible and unlikely claims have been flagged for a shamefully long time. I have therefore taken the comparatively easy step of removing them. The hard work of writing a meaningful discussion of these issues remains.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Good start, although I think we might junk the section header "Issues" and go back to the origins of the movement, with Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Alfred Deller and books such as Robert Donington's. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the "Three Ds" used to include Thurston Dart and, especially, Arnold Dolmetsch in addiion to Donington, and they had their precursors right back to the English antiquarians and some members of the Cecilian Movement in the last half of the 19th century. However, Wikipedia guidelines do encourage the inclusion of sections like this one, which are usually titled "Reception". With the addition of Richard Taruskin, we now have the views of the most important (and best-known) skeptic, well-referenced and I think fairly represented. Because of the badly written and unreferenced remainder, I think we may safely predict the imminent demise of the entire HIP movement ;-), unless some attention is soon paid to other points of view. It would be especially useful to have something on the response from Taruskin's critics, since there is nothing quite so exciting as a public brawl, though of course earlier skeptics (Ralph Vaughan Williams comes to mind) and "defenders of the faith" would also be useful. If I recall correctly, Richard's original blast was in a special editorial feature in an issue of Early Music magazine back in the early 1980s—a sort of round-table critique of the strengths and shortcomings of the HIP movement up to that point. I believe Michael Morrow (of Musica Reservata fame) was one of the other contributors. I think it might be useful to start there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, you just made me recognize that all the people who spoke about HIP before there was HIP (I forget which conductor - Bruno Walter or Thomas Beecham - likened the sound of a harpsichord to a broken car or something like that). With time I could probably find more that support Taruskin's point of view. I could also flesh out his ideas a bit more. -- kosboot (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there were plenty of quips, but the Vaughan Williams example I am thinking of was quite sustained and was not just "off the top of his head", but a passage in a published book (I can't remember the title, but it was quite a slim volume). Pierre Boulez also published a fairly extended diatribe against HI performances, I think some years before Taruskin. I remember a particularly tart phrase about the "authentic performance" devotees who would love nothing more than a recording of the world premiere of Fidelio, with all its lovely out-of-tune instruments, wrong notes, and missed entrances. Fleshing out Richard's ideas would be helpful in the long term but not, I think, at the expense of ignoring other points of view.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lost property: The first sentence of the "Issues" section, "As in literature, ..." seems to have lost its ending during editing. Any ideas? AlanS1951 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel beginning a paragraph with a poor metaphor is bad writing, so I removed the sentence fragment entirely. Maybe one can try such things in a literary work, but encyclopedic writing should resist such literary exercises. - kosboot (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Instruments

I wonder if this article is becoming too much a catalog of instruments. I think a brief mention of the instruments would be sufficient and that articles on the individual instruments could discuss their attributes. To make the HIP movement primarily about instruments seems mis-balanced in my opinion. - kosboot (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is particularly odd because instrumental music only became important as a separate category at the beginning of the 17th century, when the period usually addressed by HIP was nearly over.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a tad strong, Mr. Kohl. Almost all Baroque performances are scrutinized from a HI perspective nowadays, and it's been creeping into Mozart and Beethoven for a while. The only boring performance I've ever heard of the Eroica Symphony was twenty years ago when a well-known early music group performed it with every detail subjected to intense performance-practice love, with the result that every articulation was perfect but the music never went anywhere. A Beethoven symphony, dull?! —Wahoofive (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the title of this article was "Historically informed performance", not "Historically informed performance of Baroque and post-baroque music". My mistake. As for baroque music itself, the emphasis on instruments is still a gross distortion, since the dominant musical form of the period was opera (in those days, customarily placing singers in the spotlight while relegating instruments to the pit).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"the period usually addressed by HIP" is open to misunderstanding isn't it? I'm all in favor of giving Riffkin and Cardine their due, but I suspect more frequenters of Early Music festivals worry about backfalls than quillismas. What bothers me most about the article at present is a lack of perspective on the movement of which HIP is the latest incarnation (it's jarring to read Landowska "is" a leading harpsichordist). Period instrument bands have certainly played a leading role, with the 'a cappella heresy' controversy coming along only in the 1980's. One way of addressing things would be to discuss the harpsichord-recorder-viol-fortepiano revivals in that order, and to include Schweizer and Moeck. Sparafucil (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues and criticism sections

It seems to me that "issues" should cover ongoing issues and debate in and around the movement, not every thing anybody has said about it. I've moved philosophical objections to the movement into the "criticism" section instead. I also feel like this section should be renamed "reception" or something so positive views on the movement can be included as well. Rufe12 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Criticism" does often carry only a negative tone, though this should not be the case. I agree that Reception" is a better heading, since it avoids this misunderstanding.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. At least given the current content of the section (which is almost entirely critical), calling it "Reception" implies that the reception of historically informed performance has been mostly negative. Maybe "Critiques" would convey the tone of the section better? Alternatively, one could add more positive reactions to this style of performance (which has been hugely influential) to the "Reception" section. Klausness (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Whole Beat Metronome Practice

I've been watching videos and reading some documents provided by an advocate of Whole Beat Metronome Practice. The theory is that in its original use, two swings of the metronome (left and right) were considered to represent a single whole beat. Current convention assigns every swing to a beat. This implies that many pre-20th century compositions (by Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann and many others) are today played far faster than originally intended. He presents many pieces of documentary evidence (see, for example, this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oh5v8hhs3Y), as well as claiming the absurdity or impossibility of playing many pieces (such as Beethoven's sonatas) at the prescribed metronome setting, according to the current prevailing metronome practice. And he interviews other musical researchers who have arrived at similar conclusions and published their own findings. I have left a similar comment at Talk:Metronome, and have started to gather some sources for and against this theory there. I will not repeat them here to avoid having two lists to maintain. Discussion should probably also be in Talk:Metronome.

This may be a valuable subject to have a section on in the 'Historically informed performance article. It seems there is both a body of modern scholarship and a rich collection of historical sources to draw from. If someone feels like making a start on describing the theory here, with the key arguments of its proponents and detractors, it would be a great addition. I may get around to it myself, but probably not for a while... Fuzzypeg★ 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Issues and criticism sections again

Someone obviously had an ax to grind in this section and elsewhere. Probably this is a long way from encyclopedic. ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the history you'll see that many people (not just a single individual) contributed to that section. So if there's an ax to grind, it's handled by many editors. - kosboot (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Historically informed performance → Historically-informed performance – grammar Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Doesn't this fall under MOS:HYPHEN's recommendation to "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, I think what MOS:HYPHEN says in that bit is that rewriting is better than using a hyphen, unless rewriting it makes it awkward. In this case, how could we rewrite it? "performance informed by history"? That would be awkward because it sounds much longer, and because that's not the term used in the sources. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think what MOS:HYPHEN is saying is that terms like this ending in -ly should not be hyphenated, and that if there is possible confusion then rewording is a good option. But I don't see any confusion in the current title without a hyphen, so rewording is unnecessary here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as used in the article's sources. This google ngram search gives it a snowball's chance in a hot place. Just plain Bill (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I understand that, while you should hyphenate compound adjectives, it is not correct to hyphenate adverbs in this way. 17:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Unnecessary; not standard orthography. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: No one has mentioned that, although it's grammatically correct, it's not used that way in the literature and media. (I'm tempted to say never used that way.) - kosboot (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• It's not even grammatically correct, otherwise I might support it. Cnbrb (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.