|
|
Posted by Stephen Walsh on October 12, 19102 at 00:27:07:
In Reply to: Re: George Frideric Handel posted by John Rasmussen on September 28, 19102 at 21:16:15:
Welcome fellow Handelian!
I agree with you that perfomers (particularly the conductor) need to be well trained in the Baroque style to pull off a convincingly authentic and historically correct performance, but in Handel's day, the view on ornamentation and (particularly) cadenzas was different from our own. Skilful improvisation was in the 18th century a mark of virtuosity (the extraordinary keyboard improvisations of Mozart and Beethoven come to mind). Singers took every opportunity to make a name for themselves, even if it meant sacrificing the composer's wishes. They could get very temperamental. Charles Burney relates an incident:
"Having one day some words with CUZZONI on her refusing to sing Falsa imagine in OTTONE; Oh! Madame (said he) je scais [sic.] bien que Vous êtes une véritable Diablesse: mais je Vous ferai sçavoir, moi, que je suis Beelzebub le Chéf des Diables. With this he took her up by the waist, and, if she made any more words, swore that he would fling her out of the window."
(There is a page of fascinating anecdotes concerning Handel- www.gfhandel.org then click on the 'Anecdotes' link)
Today there are two main streams of Baroque playing: the 'unhistorical' (for want of a better description) and the historical. The former category is hardly concerned with historical authenticity: (the stereotype of the 'Bach pianist'!) I have heard some awful recordings of Handel's Concerti Grossi made around the 60's or so, that have a sickening overuse of vibrato and portamento, playing as if it were Mahler or Tchaikovsky, and leaving out ornamentation in the most inappropriate places (can you imagine a perfect cadence in a Handel slow movement without a trill!). I have heard recordings of Mozart that have been 'vibratoed' literally beyond recognition. The trouble is that these performances are being 're-released' time and time again! On the other hand, we have the historical category. I have yet to hear a historical, period-instrument recording that gets carried away with ornamentation. I also think that Hogwood's Messiah does it very nicely, but it is somewhat restrained. Perhaps he took a little too much care with it? Baroque ornamentation has its counterpart in Romantic vibrato and portamento, and we have all heard recordings of Romantic works that get very carried away with these.
The authentic period-instrument movement has established itself firmly in Renaissance and Baroque music, is well on the way to establishing itself in Clical period music (one time at a music store half of the Mozart CDs were period-instrument recordings), and has yet to establish itself in Early Romantic music. Painstaking research is being done to find out information about the performance practice of different musical periods, and we listeners certainly benefit greatly from hearing music approximately as the composer himself would have heard it. It would take great effort to get me to listen to a 'modern' performance of a Mozart keyboard concerto or sonata, for example. The fortepiano seems to me to be so much more suitable, that there just seems to be no comparison.
What is your opinion on the period instruments/modern instruments issue? Do you find you can only listen to period performances after you have heard them?
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS
DR. ELLIOT'S NORTH AMERICAN GREAT BOOKS TOUR--COMING TO A BOOK
STORE NEAR YOU
[Shakespeare Forums]
[Bible Forums]