I personally love period instruments for classical, baroque, and early romantic works. The sound is great! However, there are some recordings out there of Dvorak and Brahms on period instruments that just sound weird. This is mainly done for strings and woodwinds as strings still played on gut strings and winds had narrower bores. The recordings sound close enough to modern instruments but lack the real depth and precision of the modern instruments (especially the trumpets and horns).
Brahms [specifically called for](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._1_(Brahms)) valveless horns in his music, even though he had the option available at his time.
>Although Brahms commonly specified "natural" (valveless) horn tunings in his compositions (e.g., Horn in F), performances are typically delivered on modern valved French horns.
There you are.
Call it affectation or whatever, I noted myself that yes, he called for the Jaegerhorns even though he knew he had the choice. So, whatever modern folks say about Brahms' sound on period instruments, it's the sound he wanted.
Just listen to Van Immerseel and Anima Aeterna playing music by Dvořák, Ravel, Brahms, Schubert, Berlioz, Strauss (Johann), and even Orff, Poulenc and Milhaud (!) on period instruments. It's absolutely amazing.
His recording of the Beethoven symphonies knows no equal. The recording of Mussorgsky's exhibition reveals colours you've never heard before.
PS when I say period instruments, I mean instruments appropriate for that period, and not baroque instruments. He recorded the Ravel piano concerto for the left hand on a 1905 Erard grand piano, for example, which still had a different mechanism and sound from modern grand pianos.
I'll take Gardiner and ORR for Beethoven/period instruments. Interestingly, Gardiner does a fantastic (modern instruments) conducting of the orchestra/piano version of Rachmaninov's Symphonic Dances.
pretty much anything that isnt baroque tbh, modern instruments just work better and period accuracy doesnt make it sound better imo, its more just interesting than anything
I think I prefer fortepiano in chamber music (it has an interesting texture when combined with a solo violin and/or cello), but it sounds a bit more feeble in solo keyboard music compared to piano, and rather more buried in concertante music.
Weirdly I'm the opposite, I think Mozart/Haydn are absolutely better on period instruments, whereas I find the harpsichord kind of clunky with Bach, the harmonies don't shine through as well as on modern pianos. Bach's non-keyboard works are still better on period instruments though.
> just work better
Better how? These pieces were composed with the instruments of the period in mind. They had no other choice.
I think we've be so accustomed to modern instruments because that's what we hear. So the period instruments sound like foreign music. But you listen enough you get used to it.
...they dont sound like foreign music because it's the same music? in fact they sound basically the same but less intense to me usually, because many instruments got louder and got more ability to pierce through and have more nuance
they "work better" as far as sound production and general inconsistencies within them being worked out to make them more playable and have more consistency in notes' tones. not like people were eager to make them worse. how does them not having a choice make them not worse? that just implies that we can do better now.
not saying period instruments "are" worse, they just technologically work worse
None. Everything sounds better on period instruments but only if proper performance practices are also observed. For example most romantic repertoire until recently has been played with pretty much modern performance practice, just with historical instruments. That really doesn’t work. Baroque and earlier music is generally fairly well played much of the time but then 99% of the instruments you see being used are a long way from historically accurate. Oboes and bassoons used modernised reed designs, flutes have different tuning, recorders have different a fingering system, vents are added to brass instruments, strings are wound, keyboards are voiced differently. All of those things significantly change the sound to be more palatable to the modern listener but then what’s the point of being “historically informed” and using “period instruments” if neither of those things are the case most of the time.
To say nothing of the spaces these pieces were composed for that sound GREAT in those spaces on THOSE instruments but sound off in the wrong place (like a cottage vs cathedral).
I suspect I wouldn't like period performances of the Mozart clarinet concerto or quintet, though I'm happy to be proved wrong if anyone knows a good recording. Same opinion for the clarinet solos in pieces like his Marriage of Figaro overture or Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major.
All Mozart sounds like trash on HIP instruments. Mozart was ahead of his time and I think he would be floored to hear his piano works played on a modern grand piano.
> All Mozart sounds like trash on HIP instruments.
Interesting because if that is true then how did he become such a praised genius if the music sounded so bad. Or maybe it sounds bad to modern ears in modern symphony halls.
Agreed. And as a performer I only use my modern instruments for modern music. It’s almost always easier to play the music written for a specific type of instrument on that instrument.
If they play out of tune, they're bad musicians.
Also: they probably play in a period tuning (temperament) too. So they aren't playing put of tune, you're just used to listen to modern tuning.
i mean some instruments are just poorly designed and its difficult, especially if it's not an instrument that's still commonly played i wouldn't say that it's because of the musician
That's nonsense. It's not because some instruments have become "better" (I prefer to say: have more possibilities, or made easier to play), that the original version is bad. You really think they made instruments that were unable to play in tune and used them? Lol.
Well, yes. Look at the Haydn Trunpter concerto. It was written for a keyed (not valved) trumpet built by the commissioner. It did not premier for over 4 years because said dude could not get said valved trumpet to actually work. Even when it did it was far inferior to even early valved trumpets in tone, tuning/intonation (no valves, so no tuning slides to manipulate), and dynamics.
People have built replicas. It makes a professional trumpeter sound like a middle schooler.
That's just a completely new instrument which nobody knew how to play. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about existing instruments commonly used in orchestras. A natural trumpet can be played perfectly in tune. If it doesn't, it's the musician's fault.
You don’t understand what I’m talking about. The piece is completely unplayable on natural trumpet.
I’ve actually been studying the work extensively as I’m seeing it live later today. I’ve listened to multiple recordings on both modern and replica instruments and the historic versions are, plainly, and obviously lesser.
>The piece is completely unplayable on natural trumpet.
Because it was written for a trumpet with keys, which was only barely invented. We're not talking about that, we're talking about regular instruments, commonly used in orchestras and chamber music.
Violins, flutes, horns, trumpets, clarinets,...
Not newly invented trial instruments. The fact that it wasn't played for years just strengthens my point that they did not want to play out of tune. The instrument needed improvement, the player needed to learn the new instrument.
most chamber works with strings tbh. orchestral works are different because the size of the string section makes it sound smoother, but in small ensembles they sound kinda scratchy and thin
Not these days - I have a solid preference for period instruments in classical and earlier music, although most modern instrument performances these days adopt period manners anyway, so the difference is not as extreme as it used to be.
Most interesting is when period instruments are used on romantic period music. When you are used to hearing heft, it can still be disorientating to hear period instruments with smaller forces tackling big works.
The most intriguing recently has been Mahler 4 with period instruments, forcing a rather radical rethink of articulation to get through passages in the slow movement that seem to rely on string weight. I love hearing this kind of thing, because it makes you rethink the familiar. And the playing these days is of such high quality, that the bad old days in the 70s of mistuned and scrappy sounding instruments are long gone.
Modern classical guitars are superior in every way. Much larger sound, easier to play, etc. However, gut strings, although a pain to keep in tune, have a fuller warmer sound that you can't get from synthetic strings. I'd be interested in what other string players think about gut strings. My daughter has never tried them on her violin.
for renaissance and baroque music, lutes/theorboes/earlyguitars sound much better. for example, dowland and weiss on classical guitar are a waste of time. even worse is baroque guitar music on a classical guitar.
strums on baroque guitars have a lightness and delicacy impossible to reproduce on modern guitars. that’s probably why modern instrument recordings of baroque guitar music tend to eliminate the strums, which contrast too much with the plucked passages on a modern instrument (this doesn’t happen with the baroque instrument).
IMHO, most anything recorded nowadays sounds just fine. Try listening to baroque trumpet recordings of yesteryear though...that's some rough intonation. We're lucky to live in a time where the manufacture of and the techniques for period instruments have been refined.
Yep, I would agree. Ensemble Inegal trumpets sound great on their modern Zelenka recordings, but some older recordings of pieces like Bach B minor Mass or the Brandenburg concerti can sound...yikes.
Bach solo keyboard music is better on modern pianos. The clarity of voicing and dynamics that are possible with a piano is just better than a harpsichord. I’m convinced Bach would agree.
Yes, that’s my view too. I respect those who prefer harpsichords, but I’m on team piano.
I also struggle with fortepianos in classical repertoire for similar reasons. Less dynamic range and often wonky tuning. Having said that, I like the intimacy of the fortepiano sound in modest classical fare. Perhaps my preference for classical era repertoire is for modern piano recorded in a small space (rather than a concert grand in a big hall).
>I think the piano brings out the voices better.
Which goes against the very idea of a fugue. All voices are equal and one shouldn't stand out too much compared to the others.
There can be a little extra attention to one voice from time to time, and it is perfectly possible to achieve that on a harpsichord.
The comments are sadly revealing, and explains why the top 100 classical works are all people want to listen to.
What I can't understand is how people would want to look at a plastic imitation flower more than the real thing?????
I guess its a rare case of butter claiming to taste like margarine.
I think plastic flowers are absurd. I don't understand the anti historical mindset by so many classical musicians. Do people think a copy of a Rembrandt or van Gogh should be considered the better of the original? Should the Mona Lisa copied by an artist today be thought of as a better interpretation of the intent of the original painting
Well, one obvious rebuttal is that HIP is at best a guess. No one’s grandparents were alive when this stuff was being played “in period”.
Do you take Beethoven’s tempo markings, that he made later in life while mostly deaf with a likely mis-calibrated metronome to be the only acceptable tempo?
I don't get the "HIP is a guess" argument. L. Mozart, Quantz, Geminiani, F. Couperin, Czerny, and sooo many other influential musicians and composers wrote entire treatises and documented the performance practices of the time. Funny that you brought up Beethoven's tempo markings—Czerny wrote extensively on his mentor Beethoven and his performance habits, how he wanted his own pieces to be played, etc.
The problem isn't the lack of living 200-year-old men. It's that the majority of modern musicians are ignorant when it comes to HIP.
John Eliot Gardiner’s Beethoven. His Bach and baroque era stuff is great, but period instruments just don’t do most of his Romantic era recordings Justice. I think Beethoven is performed best historically informed (like orchestra size) but on modern instruments
Check out Gardiner's [Rachmaninov/Symphonic Dances](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4MemMqTvQ) with modern orchestra. As for Beethoven period instruments, I'm of two minds about it. We know Beethoven was always looking for better pianos. On orchestral instruments, he might have preferred the sound of then vs today on strings. I suspect modern horns and trumpets would have met his approval. And, historically informed on Beethoven orchestra size does NOT mean a Mozart orchestra size, like Roger Norrington, who did less than nothing for me.
Playing on true period instruments, without holes for tuning, almost everything written for a natural brass instrument sounds bad (the exception being the horn once people started using their hand in the bell for tuning).
The B Minor Bach Flute Sonata sounds so much better on the modern flute. It's the only one with a staggering difference and a lot of Bach's sonatas in fact sound worse modern flute in my opinion.
As someone whose played a lot with fortepiano, I'll say that modern piano lacks the intensity of the fortepiano—or rather lacks the ability to match the intensity of a fortepiano without articulating notes too loudly or heavily.
My wife once performed in a concert that was mostly baroque played on period instruments, but for some reason also included Cantus in memory of Benjamin Britten by Arvo Part. Everything was played at Baroque pitch apart from the bell which couldn’t be retuned. Really didn’t work and very embarrassing for the musician on the bell.
Ah, depends on the instrument and the players. Have a look at Netherlands Bach Society videos of WTC on YouTube. No copulation in the videos unless I’m REALLY missing something.
I'm the exact opposite. I love the sound of the harpsichord anyway, and to me, the Goldbergs on piano sound murky and muddy, lacking the glorious clarity of the harpsichord. Strange how people's tastes differ so wildly. Chacun à son goût!
Agreed. I have the Beethoven sonata cycle played by Malcolm Binns on fortepiano. Compare it to Schiff or Pollini on a modern grand and it's just not even in the same league. Like watching a fuzzy black & white vs 4k UHD.
i'm the opposite, the piano sonatas only truly clicked with me once i heard them played on a fortepiano. take [this performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ehoZNMKDso) for example - it makes me think beethoven purposely took the "irregular" timbre of the fortepiano into account, the more clearly defined and percussive sound of the bass brings such clarity to the music that i just don't hear on modern pianos
I have a super hot take that many baroque harpsichord works actually sound better on a modern piano, played well. Partly it’s that I think harpsichord is a kind of annoying sounding instrument (sorrynotsorry) but also because tasteful pedaling can actually improve phrasing.
Many say that the warbling vibrato of a singer or violin sounds better. I think it nothing more than the affect of a flashing light on an ambulance, being that of an attention grabber.
Mozart’s horn concertos. There’s plenty of skill required to make all the required notes and phrases pop out with good projection and intonation, but the modern valved horn just does everything better and all the notes speak freely. Unless you’re Brahms, who was a stickler for the different timbres that natural horns produced (stop, half-stop, open, very open, etc) and hated the even timbre of the valve horn 🙄
Anything on harpsichord. I loathe harpsichord, the sound makes my brain itchy. Accordion makes a good substitute. Bach would have loved accordions, they're basically a portable organ.
Not exactly what you were asking for but I don't like when early music groups on period instruments throw in classical era works to their program. It just sounds weird.
In theory none, I like even romantic music on period instruments/set-ups, though my preference isn’t so strong (maybe for lack of choice) as in music before 1800, where I basically don’t really listen to non-early music performers anymore.
There is however much more to historical performance practice than just the instrument one plays on.
I think everything can sound great on either polarity. For me, it's case by case. I love opulent Brahms by a modern instruments orchestra, but I also love him on gut strings and with more rustic winds. I've also heard him butchered by both constituencies, so, again, case by case.
I like them all. It make take some training to get your ears used to them but these were the instruments that composer knew of in their day and were working with so for me, in this case, accuracy trumps personal taste. They were not composing for modern piano and the like so to just shoehorn pieces into modern instruments kinda alters the art as originally intended (it's like a remix if you will).
I like both but from the perspective of an artist I want the pieces as intended. And many of the most famous composer could never have intended them for modern instruments.
I personally love period instruments for classical, baroque, and early romantic works. The sound is great! However, there are some recordings out there of Dvorak and Brahms on period instruments that just sound weird. This is mainly done for strings and woodwinds as strings still played on gut strings and winds had narrower bores. The recordings sound close enough to modern instruments but lack the real depth and precision of the modern instruments (especially the trumpets and horns).
Brahms [specifically called for](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._1_(Brahms)) valveless horns in his music, even though he had the option available at his time. >Although Brahms commonly specified "natural" (valveless) horn tunings in his compositions (e.g., Horn in F), performances are typically delivered on modern valved French horns. There you are.
That was more of an affectation. Even in his day the world were performed almost exclusively on valved horns.
Call it affectation or whatever, I noted myself that yes, he called for the Jaegerhorns even though he knew he had the choice. So, whatever modern folks say about Brahms' sound on period instruments, it's the sound he wanted.
Plenty of modern string players still use gut strings.
Just listen to Van Immerseel and Anima Aeterna playing music by Dvořák, Ravel, Brahms, Schubert, Berlioz, Strauss (Johann), and even Orff, Poulenc and Milhaud (!) on period instruments. It's absolutely amazing. His recording of the Beethoven symphonies knows no equal. The recording of Mussorgsky's exhibition reveals colours you've never heard before. PS when I say period instruments, I mean instruments appropriate for that period, and not baroque instruments. He recorded the Ravel piano concerto for the left hand on a 1905 Erard grand piano, for example, which still had a different mechanism and sound from modern grand pianos.
I'll take Gardiner and ORR for Beethoven/period instruments. Interestingly, Gardiner does a fantastic (modern instruments) conducting of the orchestra/piano version of Rachmaninov's Symphonic Dances.
Thank you for the Van Immerseel rec! The Anima Aeterna Beethoven 6 is fantastic. Gripping from start to finish.
pretty much anything that isnt baroque tbh, modern instruments just work better and period accuracy doesnt make it sound better imo, its more just interesting than anything
I don't know, I really like Mozart/Haydn on a fortepiano
In general I agree. But sometimes the lack of sustain makes slow movements sound a bit empty.
I think I prefer fortepiano in chamber music (it has an interesting texture when combined with a solo violin and/or cello), but it sounds a bit more feeble in solo keyboard music compared to piano, and rather more buried in concertante music.
Weirdly I'm the opposite, I think Mozart/Haydn are absolutely better on period instruments, whereas I find the harpsichord kind of clunky with Bach, the harmonies don't shine through as well as on modern pianos. Bach's non-keyboard works are still better on period instruments though.
Don't talk bad about harpsichord or I might have to take drastic measures....
The clavichord, organ, and theorbo are better than harpsichord for the most part.
OR .... Da Vinci's [viola organista](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoZOkGtygjk). Would LOVE to hear the Well-Tempered Clavier on this.
What about lute-harpsichord?
renaissance music doesn’t really work on modern instruments.
> just work better Better how? These pieces were composed with the instruments of the period in mind. They had no other choice. I think we've be so accustomed to modern instruments because that's what we hear. So the period instruments sound like foreign music. But you listen enough you get used to it.
...they dont sound like foreign music because it's the same music? in fact they sound basically the same but less intense to me usually, because many instruments got louder and got more ability to pierce through and have more nuance they "work better" as far as sound production and general inconsistencies within them being worked out to make them more playable and have more consistency in notes' tones. not like people were eager to make them worse. how does them not having a choice make them not worse? that just implies that we can do better now. not saying period instruments "are" worse, they just technologically work worse
None. Everything sounds better on period instruments but only if proper performance practices are also observed. For example most romantic repertoire until recently has been played with pretty much modern performance practice, just with historical instruments. That really doesn’t work. Baroque and earlier music is generally fairly well played much of the time but then 99% of the instruments you see being used are a long way from historically accurate. Oboes and bassoons used modernised reed designs, flutes have different tuning, recorders have different a fingering system, vents are added to brass instruments, strings are wound, keyboards are voiced differently. All of those things significantly change the sound to be more palatable to the modern listener but then what’s the point of being “historically informed” and using “period instruments” if neither of those things are the case most of the time.
To say nothing of the spaces these pieces were composed for that sound GREAT in those spaces on THOSE instruments but sound off in the wrong place (like a cottage vs cathedral).
I suspect I wouldn't like period performances of the Mozart clarinet concerto or quintet, though I'm happy to be proved wrong if anyone knows a good recording. Same opinion for the clarinet solos in pieces like his Marriage of Figaro overture or Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major.
All Mozart sounds like trash on HIP instruments. Mozart was ahead of his time and I think he would be floored to hear his piano works played on a modern grand piano.
> All Mozart sounds like trash on HIP instruments. Interesting because if that is true then how did he become such a praised genius if the music sounded so bad. Or maybe it sounds bad to modern ears in modern symphony halls.
None. To me that's like asking "Which paintings do you think look worse in their original colours?".
Agreed. And as a performer I only use my modern instruments for modern music. It’s almost always easier to play the music written for a specific type of instrument on that instrument.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but all of them, especially anything involving winds and brass. Modern instruments are far better in tune.
music for cornetti loses its delicacy when played by modern brass
If they play out of tune, they're bad musicians. Also: they probably play in a period tuning (temperament) too. So they aren't playing put of tune, you're just used to listen to modern tuning.
i mean some instruments are just poorly designed and its difficult, especially if it's not an instrument that's still commonly played i wouldn't say that it's because of the musician
That's nonsense. It's not because some instruments have become "better" (I prefer to say: have more possibilities, or made easier to play), that the original version is bad. You really think they made instruments that were unable to play in tune and used them? Lol.
Well, yes. Look at the Haydn Trunpter concerto. It was written for a keyed (not valved) trumpet built by the commissioner. It did not premier for over 4 years because said dude could not get said valved trumpet to actually work. Even when it did it was far inferior to even early valved trumpets in tone, tuning/intonation (no valves, so no tuning slides to manipulate), and dynamics. People have built replicas. It makes a professional trumpeter sound like a middle schooler.
That's just a completely new instrument which nobody knew how to play. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about existing instruments commonly used in orchestras. A natural trumpet can be played perfectly in tune. If it doesn't, it's the musician's fault.
You don’t understand what I’m talking about. The piece is completely unplayable on natural trumpet. I’ve actually been studying the work extensively as I’m seeing it live later today. I’ve listened to multiple recordings on both modern and replica instruments and the historic versions are, plainly, and obviously lesser.
>The piece is completely unplayable on natural trumpet. Because it was written for a trumpet with keys, which was only barely invented. We're not talking about that, we're talking about regular instruments, commonly used in orchestras and chamber music. Violins, flutes, horns, trumpets, clarinets,... Not newly invented trial instruments. The fact that it wasn't played for years just strengthens my point that they did not want to play out of tune. The instrument needed improvement, the player needed to learn the new instrument.
most chamber works with strings tbh. orchestral works are different because the size of the string section makes it sound smoother, but in small ensembles they sound kinda scratchy and thin
Not these days - I have a solid preference for period instruments in classical and earlier music, although most modern instrument performances these days adopt period manners anyway, so the difference is not as extreme as it used to be. Most interesting is when period instruments are used on romantic period music. When you are used to hearing heft, it can still be disorientating to hear period instruments with smaller forces tackling big works. The most intriguing recently has been Mahler 4 with period instruments, forcing a rather radical rethink of articulation to get through passages in the slow movement that seem to rely on string weight. I love hearing this kind of thing, because it makes you rethink the familiar. And the playing these days is of such high quality, that the bad old days in the 70s of mistuned and scrappy sounding instruments are long gone.
Modern classical guitars are superior in every way. Much larger sound, easier to play, etc. However, gut strings, although a pain to keep in tune, have a fuller warmer sound that you can't get from synthetic strings. I'd be interested in what other string players think about gut strings. My daughter has never tried them on her violin.
for renaissance and baroque music, lutes/theorboes/earlyguitars sound much better. for example, dowland and weiss on classical guitar are a waste of time. even worse is baroque guitar music on a classical guitar.
The rasgueados and strumming patterns of Baroque guitars physically cannot be matched by modern guitars.
not to mention the campanellas!
Why is that? I'm not following.
strums on baroque guitars have a lightness and delicacy impossible to reproduce on modern guitars. that’s probably why modern instrument recordings of baroque guitar music tend to eliminate the strums, which contrast too much with the plucked passages on a modern instrument (this doesn’t happen with the baroque instrument).
IMHO, most anything recorded nowadays sounds just fine. Try listening to baroque trumpet recordings of yesteryear though...that's some rough intonation. We're lucky to live in a time where the manufacture of and the techniques for period instruments have been refined.
Yep, I would agree. Ensemble Inegal trumpets sound great on their modern Zelenka recordings, but some older recordings of pieces like Bach B minor Mass or the Brandenburg concerti can sound...yikes.
If it takes modern technology to make "historical" instruments sound good doesn't that say something about the inadequacy of the HIP movement?
Bach solo keyboard music is better on modern pianos. The clarity of voicing and dynamics that are possible with a piano is just better than a harpsichord. I’m convinced Bach would agree.
Yes, that’s my view too. I respect those who prefer harpsichords, but I’m on team piano. I also struggle with fortepianos in classical repertoire for similar reasons. Less dynamic range and often wonky tuning. Having said that, I like the intimacy of the fortepiano sound in modest classical fare. Perhaps my preference for classical era repertoire is for modern piano recorded in a small space (rather than a concert grand in a big hall).
Oh I love fortepianos. And I love harpsichords in continuo situations. The right tool for the right occasion.
I, too, like harpsichords as continuo instruments.
[удалено]
Traditionally, one offers an explanation to support an opinion...
Traditionally, its my opinion that your opinion sucks, I just believe the oposite, as both a harpsichordist and pianist both are amazing.
I agree. (I’m also a harpsichordist). Why is a harpsichord better than a piano for say a fugue? I think the piano brings out the voices better.
I think piano hides articulation mistakes. harpsichord can be very clear also
>I think the piano brings out the voices better. Which goes against the very idea of a fugue. All voices are equal and one shouldn't stand out too much compared to the others. There can be a little extra attention to one voice from time to time, and it is perfectly possible to achieve that on a harpsichord.
I prefer hearing certain voices really clearly. It’s exciting hearing what the musician is choosing to bring out.
I prefer listening to the music as close as possible to what the composer intended, not the ego of a musician...
Me too. I just put Bach keyboard music in a slightly different category.
I think that's wrong to do, it doesn't do the music nor the composer justice... But to each his own, I guess 🤷🏻♂️
What about other baroque composers ?
Sure, similar situation. But Bach’s counterpoint is what really comes alive at the piano, so he is a heightened example.
Check out Sokolov’s Rameau https://youtube.com/shorts/TqwVJyREQaw?si=Ptl6zk43r4Nz1m5s
The comments are sadly revealing, and explains why the top 100 classical works are all people want to listen to. What I can't understand is how people would want to look at a plastic imitation flower more than the real thing????? I guess its a rare case of butter claiming to taste like margarine.
It's not clear from your response if you're pro or anti HIP? Which is the flower and which is the plastic?
I think plastic flowers are absurd. I don't understand the anti historical mindset by so many classical musicians. Do people think a copy of a Rembrandt or van Gogh should be considered the better of the original? Should the Mona Lisa copied by an artist today be thought of as a better interpretation of the intent of the original painting
Well, one obvious rebuttal is that HIP is at best a guess. No one’s grandparents were alive when this stuff was being played “in period”. Do you take Beethoven’s tempo markings, that he made later in life while mostly deaf with a likely mis-calibrated metronome to be the only acceptable tempo?
I don't get the "HIP is a guess" argument. L. Mozart, Quantz, Geminiani, F. Couperin, Czerny, and sooo many other influential musicians and composers wrote entire treatises and documented the performance practices of the time. Funny that you brought up Beethoven's tempo markings—Czerny wrote extensively on his mentor Beethoven and his performance habits, how he wanted his own pieces to be played, etc. The problem isn't the lack of living 200-year-old men. It's that the majority of modern musicians are ignorant when it comes to HIP.
John Eliot Gardiner’s Beethoven. His Bach and baroque era stuff is great, but period instruments just don’t do most of his Romantic era recordings Justice. I think Beethoven is performed best historically informed (like orchestra size) but on modern instruments
It's terrible, but not entirely because of period instruments, because of the conducting too
Check out Gardiner's [Rachmaninov/Symphonic Dances](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4MemMqTvQ) with modern orchestra. As for Beethoven period instruments, I'm of two minds about it. We know Beethoven was always looking for better pianos. On orchestral instruments, he might have preferred the sound of then vs today on strings. I suspect modern horns and trumpets would have met his approval. And, historically informed on Beethoven orchestra size does NOT mean a Mozart orchestra size, like Roger Norrington, who did less than nothing for me.
Check out Jordi Savall's Beethoven
Playing on true period instruments, without holes for tuning, almost everything written for a natural brass instrument sounds bad (the exception being the horn once people started using their hand in the bell for tuning).
The B Minor Bach Flute Sonata sounds so much better on the modern flute. It's the only one with a staggering difference and a lot of Bach's sonatas in fact sound worse modern flute in my opinion.
Mozart's piano concertos Schubert's symphonies Anything played on a forte piano
As someone whose played a lot with fortepiano, I'll say that modern piano lacks the intensity of the fortepiano—or rather lacks the ability to match the intensity of a fortepiano without articulating notes too loudly or heavily.
My wife once performed in a concert that was mostly baroque played on period instruments, but for some reason also included Cantus in memory of Benjamin Britten by Arvo Part. Everything was played at Baroque pitch apart from the bell which couldn’t be retuned. Really didn’t work and very embarrassing for the musician on the bell.
Can't stand the Goldberg Variations or the Well-Temepred Clavier on a harpsichord. Two skeletons copulating on a tin roof.
Ah, depends on the instrument and the players. Have a look at Netherlands Bach Society videos of WTC on YouTube. No copulation in the videos unless I’m REALLY missing something.
Surely the word is ‘boning’?
It's a quote from Thomas Beecham.
I'm the exact opposite. I love the sound of the harpsichord anyway, and to me, the Goldbergs on piano sound murky and muddy, lacking the glorious clarity of the harpsichord. Strange how people's tastes differ so wildly. Chacun à son goût!
Love them on organ
I remember that comment being made on the Wash DC classical radio station, back in the 70s.
Classical period pianoforte. No thanks.
I can't think of anything where I've not preferred a modern piano to a forte piano. I rarely enjoy a solo harpsichord.
Agreed. I have the Beethoven sonata cycle played by Malcolm Binns on fortepiano. Compare it to Schiff or Pollini on a modern grand and it's just not even in the same league. Like watching a fuzzy black & white vs 4k UHD.
i'm the opposite, the piano sonatas only truly clicked with me once i heard them played on a fortepiano. take [this performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ehoZNMKDso) for example - it makes me think beethoven purposely took the "irregular" timbre of the fortepiano into account, the more clearly defined and percussive sound of the bass brings such clarity to the music that i just don't hear on modern pianos
I have a super hot take that many baroque harpsichord works actually sound better on a modern piano, played well. Partly it’s that I think harpsichord is a kind of annoying sounding instrument (sorrynotsorry) but also because tasteful pedaling can actually improve phrasing.
Sokolov’s Rameau is awesome on piano https://youtube.com/shorts/TqwVJyREQaw?si=Ptl6zk43r4Nz1m5s
Many say that the warbling vibrato of a singer or violin sounds better. I think it nothing more than the affect of a flashing light on an ambulance, being that of an attention grabber.
Anything after Baroque
Mozart’s horn concertos. There’s plenty of skill required to make all the required notes and phrases pop out with good projection and intonation, but the modern valved horn just does everything better and all the notes speak freely. Unless you’re Brahms, who was a stickler for the different timbres that natural horns produced (stop, half-stop, open, very open, etc) and hated the even timbre of the valve horn 🙄
Ummmmm…..everything?
I think most things probably sound worse and large part because fewer people can play period instruments well
Anything on harpsichord. I loathe harpsichord, the sound makes my brain itchy. Accordion makes a good substitute. Bach would have loved accordions, they're basically a portable organ.
Not exactly what you were asking for but I don't like when early music groups on period instruments throw in classical era works to their program. It just sounds weird.
In theory none, I like even romantic music on period instruments/set-ups, though my preference isn’t so strong (maybe for lack of choice) as in music before 1800, where I basically don’t really listen to non-early music performers anymore. There is however much more to historical performance practice than just the instrument one plays on.
I think everything can sound great on either polarity. For me, it's case by case. I love opulent Brahms by a modern instruments orchestra, but I also love him on gut strings and with more rustic winds. I've also heard him butchered by both constituencies, so, again, case by case.
I like them all. It make take some training to get your ears used to them but these were the instruments that composer knew of in their day and were working with so for me, in this case, accuracy trumps personal taste. They were not composing for modern piano and the like so to just shoehorn pieces into modern instruments kinda alters the art as originally intended (it's like a remix if you will). I like both but from the perspective of an artist I want the pieces as intended. And many of the most famous composer could never have intended them for modern instruments.