On Saturday, December 13, 2014 at 4:14:07 AM UTC-10, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I'm fussy about word usage. I'm increasingly annoyed by narrators saying
> "recorded history".
>
> "Recorded history" is a tautology. The word "history" implies something for
> which there's a written or visual record. * This is why dinosaurs are called
> pre-historic creatures.
>
> "Historically informed" performance practices have to be based on a reliable
> record of how music was actually performed -- not on what we think or assume
> performance practices were.
>
> I'm curious... Which HIPs have genuinely historical evidence supporting them?
>
> * Fossils don't count. We're talking rock carvings, cave paintings, etc.

(Recent Y. upload):

Music Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics

Op 2022-01-14 om 08:39 schreef gggg gggg:> > (Recent Y. upload):> >
Music Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics

According to that chat it is a "fact" that Period Performance Practice
Is Killing The Classics by playing the Adagio of Beethoven's 9th
relatively fast. And there is evidence to "prove" it.
Classical music has been killed? Even before HIP existed some conductors
played that movement fast. Even on Klemperer's recording for EMI the
Adagio is shorter than the Scherzo. Classical music is still alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfRnRsW7gQ

On 1/14/2022 6:48 AM, Gerard wrote:
> Op 2022-01-14 om 08:39 schreef gggg gggg:> > (Recent Y. upload):> > Music Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics
>
> According to that chat it is a "fact" that Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics by playing the Adagio of Beethoven's 9th relatively fast. And there is evidence to "prove" it.
> Classical music has been killed? Even before HIP existed some conductors played that movement fast. Even on Klemperer's recording for EMI the Adagio is shorter than the Scherzo. Classical music is still alive.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfRnRsW7gQ
>
>

You missed his point entirely. What he objects to is not speed per se, but the freedom to vary speed and other aspects of a performance without being judged by the Period Performance Police. As a general rule, the stricter the rules the less innovation there will be. Not just in music. Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion or circumstances.

Op 2022-01-14 om 18:43 schreef Frank Berger:
> On 1/14/2022 6:48 AM, Gerard wrote:
>> Op 2022-01-14 om 08:39 schreef gggg gggg:> > (Recent Y. upload):> >
>> Music Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics
>>
>> According to that chat it is a "fact" that Period Performance Practice
>> Is Killing The Classics by playing the Adagio of Beethoven's 9th
>> relatively fast. And there is evidence to "prove" it.
>> Classical music has been killed? Even before HIP existed some
>> conductors played that movement fast. Even on Klemperer's recording
>> for EMI the Adagio is shorter than the Scherzo. Classical music is
>> still alive.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfRnRsW7gQ
>>
>>
>
>
> You missed his point entirely.

I didn't.

> What he objects to is not speed per se,
> but the freedom to vary speed and other aspects of a performance without
> being judged by the Period Performance Police. As a general rule, the
> stricter the rules the less innovation there will be.  Not just in
> music.  Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion or
> circumstances.

Who is judged by the Period Performance Police? Nobody.
You missed my point entirely.

ThOn 1/14/2022 3:25 PM, Gerard wrote:
> Op 2022-01-14 om 18:43 schreef Frank Berger:
>> On 1/14/2022 6:48 AM, Gerard wrote:
>>> Op 2022-01-14 om 08:39 schreef gggg gggg:> > (Recent Y. upload):> > Music Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics
>>>
>>> According to that chat it is a "fact" that Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics by playing the Adagio of Beethoven's 9th relatively fast. And there is evidence to "prove" it.
>>> Classical music has been killed? Even before HIP existed some conductors played that movement fast. Even on Klemperer's recording for EMI the Adagio is shorter than the Scherzo. Classical music is still alive.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfRnRsW7gQ
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You missed his point entirely.
>
>
> I didn't.
>
Why can't you admit it. You talked only about speed. Hurwitz knows there is an overlap in speed between HIP and non-HIP. He's not a moron. He explicitly said his problem was the pressure not to innovate, to conform, that he sees as being inherent, or part of. HIP. THAT was his point. You missed it, instead saying he was talking about speed, which he wasn't.

>
>> What he objects to is not speed per se, but the freedom to vary speed and other aspects of a performance without being judged by the Period Performance Police. As a general rule, the stricter the rules the less innovation there will be.  Not just in music.  Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion or circumstances.
>
> Who is judged by the Period Performance Police? Nobody.

That is entirely besides the point, which is what upsets Hurwitz about HIP.

> You missed my point entirely.

You are like a 2-year old.

>
>

In article <srsm8b$1lf4$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Gerard <g_hendriksen-nospam-@live.com> wrote:
>Who is judged by the Period Performance Police? Nobody.

The power of such a group appears to be a popular fantasy here
(among others reiterated regularly by a few fantasy-prone posters)....

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, Frank Berger wrote:

> On 1/14/2022 6:48 AM, Gerard wrote:
>> Op 2022-01-14 om 08:39 schreef gggg gggg:> > (Recent Y. upload):> > Music
>> Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics
>>
>> According to that chat it is a "fact" that Period Performance Practice Is
>> Killing The Classics by playing the Adagio of Beethoven's 9th relatively
>> fast. And there is evidence to "prove" it.
>> Classical music has been killed? Even before HIP existed some conductors
>> played that movement fast. Even on Klemperer's recording for EMI the
>> Adagio is shorter than the Scherzo. Classical music is still alive.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfRnRsW7gQ
>
> You missed his point entirely. What he objects to is not speed per se, but
> the freedom to vary speed and other aspects of a performance without being
> judged by the Period Performance Police. As a general rule, the stricter the
> rules the less innovation there will be. Not just in music. Whether that
> is good or not is a matter of opinion or circumstances.

What bothered me a bit was how he divided the performancrs into period
and non-period categories in the first place, since it was not based
on the onstruments used. He didn't say. I certainly hope that speed
wasn't one of the elements used, despite some suspicions.
--
Al Eisner

In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.2201141341000.80497@iris03.slac.stanford.edu>,
Al Eisner <eisner@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>What bothered me a bit was how he divided the performancrs into
>period and non-period categories in the first place, ....

The division of performances (or whatever) into categories is often
a fruitful indicator of policing....

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, Todd M. McComb wrote:

> In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.2201141341000.80497@iris03.slac.stanford.edu>,
> Al Eisner <eisner@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> What bothered me a bit was how he divided the performancrs into
>> period and non-period categories in the first place, ....
>
> The division of performances (or whatever) into categories is often
> a fruitful indicator of policing....

The point is that if tempo/timing was part of what was used to divide
the performances into two categories, one cannot draw any conclusions
about timing differences (or differences in timing distribution)
between the two categories. But I do not in fact know how the two
categories were defined.
--
Al Eisner

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 4:57:02 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.2...@iris03.slac.stanford.edu>,
> Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >What bothered me a bit was how he divided the performancrs into
> >period and non-period categories in the first place, ....
>
> The division of performances (or whatever) into categories is often
> a fruitful indicator of policing....

"Historically informed" is nothing more
than shorthand for "my opinions trump
yours".

dk

Op 2022-01-14 om 22:44 schreef Al Eisner:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2022 6:48 AM, Gerard wrote:
>>> Op 2022-01-14 om 08:39 schreef gggg gggg:> > (Recent Y. upload):> >
>>> Music Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics
>>>
>>> According to that chat it is a "fact" that Period Performance
>>> Practice Is Killing The Classics by playing the Adagio of Beethoven's
>>> 9th relatively fast. And there is evidence to "prove" it.
>>> Classical music has been killed? Even before HIP existed some
>>> conductors played that movement fast. Even on Klemperer's recording
>>> for EMI the Adagio is shorter than the Scherzo. Classical music is
>>> still alive.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfRnRsW7gQ
>>
>> You missed his point entirely.  What he objects to is not speed per
>> se, but the freedom to vary speed and other aspects of a performance
>> without being judged by the Period Performance Police. As a general
>> rule, the stricter the rules the less innovation there will be.  Not
>> just in music.  Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion or
>> circumstances.
>
> What bothered me a bit was how he divided the performancrs into period
> and non-period categories in the first place, since it was not based
> on the onstruments used.  He didn't say.  I certainly hope that speed
> wasn't one of the elements used, despite some suspicions.

He summed up the timings (of the Adagio) on a lot of recordings, to
demonstrate how fast those performances are and to "prove" his point.
This was definitely about speed.
Some "wrong" recordings with modern instruments (but HIP influenced, so
too fast - or: too fast, so HIP influenced) I remember: Zinman,
Blomstedt's new recording, Chailly.

In article <38853c88-3baa-4917-af28-a758addc1760n@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Historically informed" is nothing more than shorthand for "my
>opinions trump yours".

Yet, it's hardly necessary for that. You manage just fine without
the phrase.

In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.2201142056160.111639@iris02.slac.stanford.edu>,
Al Eisner <eisner@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>The point is that if tempo/timing was part of what was used to
>divide the performances into two categories, one cannot draw any
>conclusions about timing differences (or differences in timing
>distribution) between the two categories.

Yes, I caught the redundancy that you were wondering about, and was
adding the further observation that when someone starts dividing
categories, expect policing to follow. That this exercise was
enacted, nominally, *against* policing already makes it a comedy
(further redundancies aside).

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 3:49:51 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <38853c88-3baa-4917...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Historically informed" is nothing more
> > than shorthand for "my opinions trump
> > yours".
>
> Yet, it's hardly necessary for that. You
> manage just fine without the phrase.

You missed the point. Describing one's
opinions as "historically informed" is an
attempt to objectivize and legitimize them.
Some people actually fall for this trick.

dk

On 1/15/22 3:23 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 3:49:51 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>> In article <38853c88-3baa-4917...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Historically informed" is nothing more
>>> than shorthand for "my opinions trump
>>> yours".
>>
>> Yet, it's hardly necessary for that. You
>> manage just fine without the phrase.
>
> You missed the point. Describing one's
> opinions as "historically informed" is an
> attempt to objectivize and legitimize them.
> Some people actually fall for this trick.

Or, to put it differently, find an opinion that isn't!

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:42:00 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
> On 1/15/22 3:23 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 3:49:51 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> >> In article <38853c88-3baa-4917...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Historically informed" is nothing more
> >>> than shorthand for "my opinions trump
> >>> yours".
> >>
> >> Yet, it's hardly necessary for that. You
> >> manage just fine without the phrase.
> >
> > You missed the point. Describing one's
> > opinions as "historically informed" is an
> > attempt to objectivize and legitimize them.
> > Some people actually fall for this trick.
>
> Or, to put it differently, find an opinion
> that isn't!

That would pretty much restrict one to
reading math and physics textbooks! ;-)

I must confess I enjoy reading physics
books far more than reading Dickens,
Balzac or Thomas Mann ;-))

dk

In article <96b8b7f6-95f2-461c-ac6f-121b31a539c4n@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>You missed the point. Describing one's opinions as "historically
>informed" is an attempt to objectivize and legitimize them.

That's certainly possible, but in this group, the term is used only
by people who dislike "historically informed" performances. I
missed no points regarding your rage against nothing.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022, Todd M. McComb wrote:

> In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.2201142056160.111639@iris02.slac.stanford.edu>,
> Al Eisner <eisner@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> The point is that if tempo/timing was part of what was used to
>> divide the performances into two categories, one cannot draw any
>> conclusions about timing differences (or differences in timing
>> distribution) between the two categories.
>
> Yes, I caught the redundancy that you were wondering about, and was
> adding the further observation that when someone starts dividing
> categories, expect policing to follow. That this exercise was
> enacted, nominally, *against* policing already makes it a comedy
> (further redundancies aside).

Right, but not amusing enough to sustain its length. (By the way, I
do like many of Dave's videos.)
--
Al Eisner

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:59:27 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <96b8b7f6-95f2-461c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You missed the point. Describing
> > one's opinions as "historically
> > informed" is an attempt to
> > objectivize and legitimize
> > them.
>
> That's certainly possible, but in
> this group, the term is used only
> by people who dislike "historically
> informed" performances. I missed
> no points regarding your rage
> against nothing.

?!? "Rage" ?!? I don't give a damn.

You seem to assume criticizing
something implies an emotional
stake. It doesn't. Partly because
of my physicist background, and
partly because of my natural
disposition, I criticize everything
in sight, as well as everything out
of sight. I can argue every side of
every case, including sides no one
else can see or imagine. Call it a
habit. And lighten up! ;-)

dk

In article <14fdf4a6-18c8-46ba-be7f-f79002d13890n@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>You seem to assume criticizing something implies an emotional
>stake.

Repetitive criticism of straw men always means something. If you
want to distance that from emotionality, suit yourself.

On 1/14/2022 4:44 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2022 6:48 AM, Gerard wrote:
>>> Op 2022-01-14 om 08:39 schreef gggg gggg:> > (Recent Y. upload):> > Music Chat: Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics
>>>
>>> According to that chat it is a "fact" that Period Performance Practice Is Killing The Classics by playing the Adagio of Beethoven's 9th relatively fast. And there is evidence to "prove" it.
>>> Classical music has been killed? Even before HIP existed some conductors played that movement fast. Even on Klemperer's recording for EMI the Adagio is shorter than the Scherzo. Classical music is still alive.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfRnRsW7gQ
>>
>> You missed his point entirely.  What he objects to is not speed per se, but the freedom to vary speed and other aspects of a performance without being judged by the Period Performance Police. As a general rule, the stricter the rules the less innovation there will be.  Not just in music.  Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion or circumstances.
>
> What bothered me a bit was how he divided the performancrs into period
> and non-period categories in the first place, since it was not based
> on the onstruments used.  He didn't say.  I certainly hope that speed
> wasn't one of the elements used, despite some suspicions.

Yes, I was confused by that also.

On 1/15/22 5:18 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:59:27 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>> In article <96b8b7f6-95f2-461c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You missed the point. Describing
>>> one's opinions as "historically
>>> informed" is an attempt to
>>> objectivize and legitimize
>>> them.
>>
>> That's certainly possible, but in
>> this group, the term is used only
>> by people who dislike "historically
>> informed" performances. I missed
>> no points regarding your rage
>> against nothing.
>
> ?!? "Rage" ?!? I don't give a damn.
>
> You seem to assume criticizing
> something implies an emotional
> stake. It doesn't. Partly because
> of my physicist background, and
> partly because of my natural
> disposition, I criticize everything
> in sight, as well as everything out
> of sight. I can argue every side of
> every case, including sides no one
> else can see or imagine. Call it a
> habit. And lighten up! ;-)
>
> dk

Interesting...I'd love to hear your argument why H.J. Lim is not a good
pianist.

-Owen

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:43:50 PM UTC-5, Owen wrote:
> On 1/15/22 5:18 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:59:27 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> >> In article <96b8b7f6-95f2-461c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You missed the point. Describing
> >>> one's opinions as "historically
> >>> informed" is an attempt to
> >>> objectivize and legitimize
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> That's certainly possible, but in
> >> this group, the term is used only
> >> by people who dislike "historically
> >> informed" performances. I missed
> >> no points regarding your rage
> >> against nothing.
> >
> > ?!? "Rage" ?!? I don't give a damn.
> >
> > You seem to assume criticizing
> > something implies an emotional
> > stake. It doesn't. Partly because
> > of my physicist background, and
> > partly because of my natural
> > disposition, I criticize everything
> > in sight, as well as everything out
> > of sight. I can argue every side of
> > every case, including sides no one
> > else can see or imagine. Call it a
> > habit. And lighten up! ;-)
>
> Interesting...I'd love to hear your
> argument why H.J. Lim is not a
> good pianist.
>

Oscar Wilde had once bragged at a
dinner party that he could speak on
any subject on amy subject without
preparation. Someone challenged
him to speak about the Queen. He
instantly retorded "Sir, the Queen
is not a subject!".

HJ Lim is not a subject! ;-)

dk

On 2022-01-19 12:50 p.m., Dan Koren wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:43:50 PM UTC-5, Owen wrote:
>> On 1/15/22 5:18 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:59:27 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>>>> In article <96b8b7f6-95f2-461c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You missed the point. Describing
>>>>> one's opinions as "historically
>>>>> informed" is an attempt to
>>>>> objectivize and legitimize
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> That's certainly possible, but in
>>>> this group, the term is used only
>>>> by people who dislike "historically
>>>> informed" performances. I missed
>>>> no points regarding your rage
>>>> against nothing.
>>>
>>> ?!? "Rage" ?!? I don't give a damn.
>>>
>>> You seem to assume criticizing
>>> something implies an emotional
>>> stake. It doesn't. Partly because
>>> of my physicist background, and
>>> partly because of my natural
>>> disposition, I criticize everything
>>> in sight, as well as everything out
>>> of sight. I can argue every side of
>>> every case, including sides no one
>>> else can see or imagine. Call it a
>>> habit. And lighten up! ;-)
>>
>> Interesting...I'd love to hear your
>> argument why H.J. Lim is not a
>> good pianist.
>>
>
> Oscar Wilde had once bragged at a
> dinner party that he could speak on
> any subject on amy subject without
> preparation. Someone challenged
> him to speak about the Queen. He
> instantly retorded "Sir, the Queen
> is not a subject!".
>
> HJ Lim is not a subject! ;-)

At a dinner party, someone made a really witty riposte and Wilde said:
"I wish I'd said that!"
To which H.G. Wells replied"
"You will, Oscar, you will!"

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:43:50 PM UTC-5, Owen wrote:
> On 1/15/22 5:18 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:59:27 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> >> In article <96b8b7f6-95f2-461c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You missed the point. Describing
> >>> one's opinions as "historically
> >>> informed" is an attempt to
> >>> objectivize and legitimize
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> That's certainly possible, but in
> >> this group, the term is used only
> >> by people who dislike "historically
> >> informed" performances. I missed
> >> no points regarding your rage
> >> against nothing.
> >
> > ?!? "Rage" ?!? I don't give a damn.
> >
> > You seem to assume criticizing
> > something implies an emotional
> > stake. It doesn't. Partly because
> > of my physicist background, and
> > partly because of my natural
> > disposition, I criticize everything
> > in sight, as well as everything out
> > of sight. I can argue every side of
> > every case, including sides no one
> > else can see or imagine. Call it a
> > habit. And lighten up! ;-)
>
> Interesting...I'd love to hear your
> argument why H.J. Lim is not a
> good pianist.
>

Oscar Wilde had once bragged at a
dinner party that he could speak on
any subject without preparation.

Someone challenged him to speak
about the Queen. He retorted "Sir,
the Queen is not a subject!".

HJ Lim is not a subject! ;-)

dk