Geeking Out on Gluck

Recently I saw an episode of the John Adams miniseries on HBO wherein there was a scene at an opera house in Paris, circa 1785. After a short recitative, a ballet excerpt was performed of such transporting loveliness that I had to know what it was, so that I could acquire it. To my surprise and disbelief, it was from "Orphee et Euridice" by Gluck, in its Paris version of 1774.

I found the performance on iTunes on the Naxos label, performed by Opera Lafayette - on period instruments and in period fashion. I had performed the title role in the opera in 1988, with a modern orchestra and singing techniques, and hated every minute of it. It was klunky and awkward, boring as dirt, and the experience informed my opinion of Gluck's music from that time onward, I'm sorry to say.

Listening carefully to the extreme delicacy of the Naxos recording, I scarcely recognized the piece. I had thought that such beat-up old standards as "The Dance of the Blessed Spirits" and "J'ai perdu mon Euridice" were impossibly trite as they were always performed nowadays; but in this performance they were astounding in their nobility and fragile loveliness, every moment a delight to the ear and the soul.

* * *

My friends, what of situations like this, where our interpretation obscures the ricepaper-fan delicacy an early composer originally intended and turns it into a modern mess? How could it not, playing it as we do on triple-strung grand pianos, or violins with wound wire strings sawn at with baseball-bat bows, and all the other modern contraptions that make Tchaikowsky and Stravinsky possible, but which crush the fair and fragrant blossoms that so many of the masterpieces of music before Beethoven are?

I suppose this is all subjective, as is everything ultimately. A colleague and I had a brief exchange about period instruments recently: he said flatly that he agreed with Itzak Perlman when he stated that period instruments don't sound good. We agreed to disagree; and then he began playing one of the Bach Cello Suites on his modern cello with his heavy modern bow and his thoroughly modern technique...and to me, THAT was what sounded bad. It couldn't possibly have been in worse taste. It sounded fat and tubby and over-the-belt - the last thing Bach should ever be - and his performance was pretty standard issue for most cellists nowadays, which is pathetically sad.

I may never listen to anything written before 1800 in a modern performance again. Regardless, if we are going to play early music, do we not all as musicians have a responsibility to find out what the music needs from us in the way of style and/or equipment at the very least, and if we cannot or are not willing to supply it, have we any business performing it? Put another way: if we want to play music by Bach and Mozart and Gluck, isn't it our responsibility to learn to play it as they expected to hear it?

The argument already rings in my ears: "if Mozart had heard a modern piano..." But the fact is, he didn't, and his music reflects what he had to work with - occasionally pushing the limits of its capabilities, which spurred the development of more modern instruments; but nevertheless, a 5-octave double-strung Walther fortepiano with tiny leather-covered hammers was what he played and heard. And frankly, his music sounds puny and insignificant on a Steinway Model B grand - don't you think?

I usually tend to enjoy period performances. I agree that since the composer originally wrote for those instruments, it makes sense to play their music with them :P.

I happen to love fortepiano recordings of Classical pieces especially :happy:....I want one so badly :sadtears:

i agree on that too, and 100%

music should be played on the instruments that were available when the piece was written and conservatories and music school should start doing something to refresh this practice and teach ppl how to play those instruments with a teaching based upon the tecniques used at that time...

but using, yes, period instruments, but not the real old thing, since it has a total different sound repsect a new fresh made period instrument, since, at that time, they didn't play on instruments 300 years old, but on things that were just made recently or at least 10-12 years old, as it happens today...

but you know... to make agree different "heads" is always hard, and there's always that person that has something different to say, even if s/he is wrong, totally or partially.

anyway i am for period instruments with period techniques and also period disposition of players in the orchestra, because this counts as well... :)

The question of period instrumentation is one that rings constantly in my mind. Whilst ultimately the question seems to boil inevitably to one of personal taste despite the gloss of historical justification, I cannot help feeling that both schools of thought can provide brilliant and enjoyable recordings.

I can't say a great deal about the performance of Mozart; the performance of late Baroque music is something I've assessed in greater detail. A huge contradiction seems to about in Bach's ensemble writing - that he wrote ardently to conform to the boundaries of each instrument (going so far as to make sure the upper and lower extremities of pieces exploited perfectly the particular harpsichords for which he was writing), yet parodied almost whimsically - he adapted secular music for cantatas, turned a double violin concerto into one for two harpsichords, reduced several orchestral works by Vivaldi for solo harpsichord.

The crux here is, I believe, the relevance of the music itself to Bach, rather than simply its expression. That his music survives bizarre transcriptions by everyone from the composer himself to Wendy Carlos is testament to at least one aspect of baroque composition - the importance of part-writing, structure and musical architecture above all else. Beyond a question of personal taste, I have no qualms with Bach being performed at the piano, provided those aforementioned traits are fiercely preserved. The piano can, for example, distort hugely the equal relationship between part-writing through individual dynamic. I detest players who insist upon prescribing the voice to which the audience should listen, thumping out subjects and muting wonderful inner voices. The fact remains that even with something like a clavichord, such effects were not possible on the keyboard instruments of Bach's day. Because Wendy Carlos' transcriptions preserve the counterpoint effectively, they still sound like Bach, even if the timbres are dated and amusing to the modern ear.

The inherent difficulties in working with such instruments are, I believe, the central stumbling block to 'modern' performances, and one which for a time made me upset to hear Bach played on the piano. What we must of course bear in mind at all times are the limits of 'period' performance. To believe that we will ever reach a stage of exact replication is ludicrous; a quick look at films made between 1920 and the present day set in Ancient Rome will confirm this. Each is a perfect example of historicism, neatly encapsulating the prevailing zeitgeist. What we will produce however is a broad and thrilling spectrum of different recordings, and this is the most wonderful aspect of the period performance debate.

I don't see any problem with playing music from the periods mentioned on modern instruments or even with modern interpretations. The fact of the matter is that some people prefer the modern sound of old pieces while others enjoy historically accurate performances. The way things are done right now allows both of these people to enjoy the music. If we decided that only one way or the other was acceptable it would only make it harder for as many people to enjoy it. Why go to such lengths to turn this music into something that only a niche group would enjoy while right now many more people have the chance to enjoy it as well?

sometimes i cant stand modern versions of classical music because the music kinda loses "purity", but sometimes they sound quite cool.

One thing I've found generally with orchestral recordings though is that the oldest are often among the best performed. Furtwangler's early recordings done in the 1940s are absolutely incredible - I assume because the German orchestras of his day were simply far, far, far better than those we hear today.

Tough question -- I think period performance has been a great corrective to frankly gross misinterpretations of earlier music. Yet I also hear on ocassion horrible misunderstandings of "period practcie" techniques - Bach 2nd Prelude played like a well regulated, clattery typewriter; Brahms symphonic passages played with such distorted rubato to sound like a taffy factory exploded; Mozart sonatas so overarticulated that it sounds more like a depiction of Turret's syndrome.

As for playing on period instruments - I agree to some extent. It depends on the composer. Composers are trained to write for the instruments as they are and exploration of its full capabilities only slowly permitted -- I think this is fine as long as the composer doesn't always relegate themselves to writing JUST for the players with limited capabilities or comission.

BTW - Mozarts and Hadyn's sonatas do suffer this --- exception being Hadyn's London Sonatas and possibly a few of 1780's sonatas. Also, in regard to the piano, I put some of the blame on the market. There are pianos such as Pleyel and Bosendorfer whose timbre is more amenable to some Mozart and Hadyn -- though NOT ideal. Nevertheless Steinway's marketing and predominance and respect (esp in the Far East) has pushed these piano makers to the side. I will make an exception though, a few Steinway models are fantastically gorgeous an versatile but these tend to be the very costly and larger models.

Also, recall the proverb "familiarity breeds contempt" - any interpretation which becomes too codified eventually strangles the life out of a piece.

While I agree with you, period instruments and performances are lovely (I have an ongoing obsession with the spinet and the shawm), musical performance was meant to evolve along with the musical concept of the time. So while it is maybe more proper to play period instruments and work with period techniques, relying on them specifically and solely for the performance of older music could be detrimental to what can be done with the music today.

I have a love/hate relationship with period instrument performances. I think it's interesting to hear the pieces the way the composer would have heard them performed on the instruments they wrote them for.

But, like co said, there are situations where you get performers that take that over the edge and you end up with a terrible performance. Not all period-instrument performances are as beautifully done as the one you refer to.

What it really comes down to for me isn't what instrument it's performed on. First priority is if it sounds good or not, other considerations come afterwards.

musical performance was meant to evolve along with the musical concept of the time.

I don't think it was mean to evolve; it simply did when the time was right.

So while it is maybe more proper to play period instruments and work with period techniques, relying on them specifically and solely for the performance of older music could be detrimental to what can be done with the music today.

I don't see why it's detrimental. If a piece is written for clarinet, we play it on a clarinet. The difference in sound between period instruments and modern ones is great enough, that in effect we're playing transcriptions of older music when we use modern instruments for it. I suppose that's fine, and it speaks, as you say, to what can be done with older music today; but let's be honest about it. Perlman playing a Bach concerto is a transcription. Bach might have liked Perlman's instrument and technique - or not - but it wasn't what he had in mind when he wrote the piece.

My experience is that composers tend to want to hear what they actually wrote, for the instruments they had in mind. We modern composers are certainly like that; many of us are such control freaks that we attempt to dictate every aspect of the interpretation, leaving almost nothing to chance. at makes us think the old masters were any different? They didn't always notate all their wishes, but in their day the norms of style and technique were more firmly established.

A transcripition is...

transcribed.

The violin is still the violin, no one transcribed Bach's violin concertos for the modern violin.

Also, Perlman often plays on a Stradivarius and occasionally a Guarneri del Gesu. Both very old instruments.

Not all period-instrument performances are as beautifully done as the one you refer to.

Not all performances are beautiful, period. It's always been that way. A bad period instruments performance at least has authenticity on its side.

Sometimes what was done in the period sounds bad to our ears, with our sensibilities. I sing with a choral group that attempts to recreate Renaissance singing techniques; not everyone likes our performances, because we use bright vowels with a lot of nasal/mask resonance. It flies in the face of two centuries of rigid bel canto conditioning, and some people call it ugly or bad. But look at even the paintings of people singing in the Renaissance. It's unmistakable...that's the technique they used, and there were good reasons for it. In the large spaces they sang in with live accoustics, the use of bright, unified vowels and mask resonance can make a big difference. There is also evidence that they didn't think of musical lines as we do. In recreating this, my ensemble treats each note as a separate event with its own shape and place in the hierarchy as well as in the line of which it is a part. This, too, has a huge effect on the clarity of the music in a large, live space - but it also drives singing traditionalists up a wall.

So, are these interpretations "bad" because they don't sound "good" to everybody - particularly those married to the modern bel canto school? Well, this ensemble won a Grammy last year for one of its recordings, so apparently a lot of people think otherwise.

The violin is still the violin, no one transcribed Bach's violin concertos for the modern violin.

Not true. Gut strings, lower fingerboard, no chinrest, different bow...huge difference.

Also, Perlman often plays on a Stradivarius and occasionally a Guarneri del Gesu. Both very old instruments.

Both of which have been rebuilt to modern specifications and are strung with wire-wound strings and played with a modern bow. Huge difference.

Not all performances are beautiful, period. It's always been that way. A bad period instruments performance at least has authenticity on its side.

A scrafty performance is scrafty, authentic or not.

Sometimes what was done in the period sounds bad to our ears, with our sensibilities.

Of course, but that doesn't mean we have to be limited to doing everything the same way. Why do you think people listen to transcriptions, for fun? No, there's a student/teacher/performer out there somewhere performing that transcription, and there's a listener listening to it.

So, are these interpretations "bad" because they don't sound "good" to everybody - particularly those married to the modern bel canto school? Well, this ensemble won a Grammy last year for one of its recordings, so apparently a lot of people think otherwise.

I never said period-practice performances were bad. But it's the 21st century, we have options.

Not true. Gut strings, lower fingerboard, no chinrest, different bow...huge difference.

I don't have Bach's hand-written manuscript of every violin concerto he wrote in front of me, so I can't say for sure. But he would have written the violin solo part in the treble clef, no? Or am I mistaken?

I'm not talking about the instrument, I'm talking about the notes on the paper. A "transcripition" is a piece that you've actually moved the notes around from their original positions on the staff in.

A "transcripition" is a piece that you've actually moved the notes around from their original positions on the staff in.

I thought that was an arrangement, and that a transcription was one where the notes stay pretty much the same, but they can be played by another instrument. I may have to research my terminology.

*excuses himself*

Whatever term you use, you could play some flute music on the oboe, and it would be very different, despite both using the treble clef and being non-transposing instruments with a to some extent somewhat similar range. Now, whether you agree that Baroque /whatever/ to modern /whatever/ is a comparable difference is a value judgment and a subject for discussion, but I think at least the gist of Lee's argument is very clear, all terminological pedantry aside...

I thought that was an arrangement, and that a transcription was one where the notes stay pretty much the same, but they can be played by another instrument.

"Transcription" often also refers to arranging, but that's not what I'm talking about. The notes ARE the same, they're written in a different clef. I meant "Moving them on the staff" as in to make them readable by another instrumentalist, sorry lol. :p

At least that's what I was taught, some other teacher'll prolly come and tell me that's wrong after this post.

EDIT:

Wait, yeah.

"a: an arrangement of a musical composition for some instrument or voice other than the original"\

ANYWAY

If some one wants to play an old piece on period instruments, more power to them. Like I said, I don't care as long as it sounds good.

Not true. Gut strings, lower fingerboard, no chinrest, different bow...huge difference.

Both of which have been rebuilt to modern specifications and are strung with wire-wound strings and played with a modern bow. Huge difference.

The biggest difference is actually the fact violin technique of nowadays has nothing to do with the pre-Spohr violin technique (glissando technique). The chinrest took a large role in redefining violin technique.