Of Roger Norrington he says:
".........plays Berlioz's Requiem without any vibrato ? it must be a foretaste of purgatory"

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai...ut-7581984.html

What do you think?

He's making the same mistake that many of those reared on a diet of vibrato on everything make: the assumption that it's preferable, and the perception that baroque and early music played more cleanly is sterile. I'd say he looks for different things from his music - that's not in itself a bad thing, but it supposes that we would all have to feel the same as he does, and I for one don't.

I've never liked huge vibrato, worst in singing because that's where it's possible to make the biggest excursions, but even the overlay of a wobble which in my mind begins to obscure the notes and harmonies: it certainly makes aural mud out of counterpoint, that mainstay of baroque music in particular. That's just me, and my opinion, but I know that many of the HIP protagonists feel similarly, or there'd not be the early music revival in the form it has taken. The fact though is that we all bring our own baggage to the music we play and listen to - it's not wrong to want music the way we prefer to hear it, but it is to be so scathing of HIP just because it's not what we like best. A famous top violinist, maturing very nicely now, did the same, slating those performers who play with much more sparing vibrato than he uses - but I would be going to their concerts, not his, because I can appreciate their skill in precise intonation and in showing me the structure of the music so simply and clearly: I also am far more moved by performances like that because for me that is the way the music speaks better. Others prefer ketchup on everything - fine, their choice.

As far as Berlioz without vibrato goes - well, the indications are that universal heavy vibrato really is a relatively late development in performance practice, not finding its way into general useage until the early twentieth century. As such, why not experiment with it and find out what else there is to hear from the score? Sometimes less really is more....

I'm open-minded on this.

I'm not a huge vibrato fan myself. That is, I don't like a very notable, wide vibrato in general and still less for Bach. On the other hand I don't think I'll ever end up a complete HIP buff. I like the sound of modern instruments, including for baroque and early music.

But I do think that "historically informed" research and performance (even if only theoretical) can only add to our musical knowledge and experience.

I thought that the claim of "near tyranny" that is apparently wielded over 18th century (and presumably earlier) music and that "many symphony orchestras have been scared away from some of the greatest music ever written" sounded a bit over the top. Or maybe it's true???

Certainly not the case out here in the styx.

This sounds like an old HIP prejudice....

Originally, vibrato was part of musical rhetoric and an affect to add emotion and intensity. It is documented as coming in around the early baroque (late 1500s / early 1600s in Italy, later further north).

The "problem" is vibrato started off as something to decorate or intensify say a long note sung on a mezzo de voce, or played ona long bow etc., became certainly by the late C19th and into the C20th, something that was applied continuously.

Applied continuously, it becomes overblown, boring, and gets in the way of the music.

One of the reasons I have always had trouble with C19th "grand opera" (i.e. Verdi etc) is the excessive use of vibrato. As I reported on an other thread, I recently encountered a young sop soloist, still studying, with a ludicrous over-the-top vibrato - it must have been a minor third wide at times. Gave credit to the old adage that the right note was in there somewhere

My view is that vibrato is a stylistic artefact that has its place, but like any form of decoration, it should be applied sensibly and sensitively.

One of the reasons that vocal vibrato became so prevalent from the Romantic era onwards is that it is the consequence of projecting the voice over a large orchestra. Those who sing with less vibrato tend to be the baroque or song specialists because they do not use their voices in the same way as a Wagnerian soprano would.

The problem tends to arise when someone who normally sings Wagner and Verdi turns their hand to Mozart. I heard a performance on the radio of a Mozart aria by a big opera 'name' that I had to switch off as it was making me feel ill - not because of the excessive vibrato per se, but because the vibrato was so wide I was hearing the vocal line in one key and the accompaniment in another.

I think Sir Colin Davis's 'outburst' is refreshing.
The 'Authentic' Performance with Period Instruments Brigade is increasingly dominating classical music concerts and in some cases is taking a dogmatic stance with an almost 'evangelical' fervour. The impression is often given that any other than so-called authentic performances are at best second-rate and at worst beyond the pale.The fact is that no one, not even the most erudite of scholars, knows how the music of the Renaissance/Tudor/Baroque,etc. composers sounded when it was performed in their lifetime. It is probably as well that we do not know, for we might find much of it excruciating !
I am not convinced that a present day authentic performance(so-called) of a Bach cantata by John Elliot Gardner and his 'band' bears much resemblance to that heard at a normal Sunday service at St Thomas's Church conducted by the composer himself. I agree with Sir Colin when he says their playing of Baroque music is 'entirely theoretical' .

However, having agreed with Sir Colin Davis's viewpoint, I still think there is a place for 'authentic' performances if only for the sake of comparison. We can at least be reminded of how we do not like to hear Bach, Haydn, Mozart, et al, or, on the other hand, we may grow to like such interpretations with repeated hearings.
For me, variety in interpretation is a joy in music-making whether it is a supposed historically accurate one or one of many varied contemporary interpretations.

I think the refreshment lies more in HIP than it does in Sir Colin's ketchup with everything approach: but either way, both options, HIP or ketchup, provide some part of the musical community with examples of how they'd rather not have their music served up . We do know from texts on performance written in the past about preferred performance practice, and vibrato in particular, used sparingly and for colour/expressiveness. Sure, that doesn't mean that we can reconstruct every nuance of an early performance accurately, but the early instrument designs and building materials, plus use of such guidelines as we have still available, must give some indication of the sorts of sounds people might once have heard, and for which composers in the past will have written. It won't necessarily make that result palatable to the ketchup brigade, but there are plenty of us still left to enjoy it .

Sorry, but can't agree with some of your comments

It is fair to say that until the arrival of recorded sound c.1900 we have absolutely no idea what performances sounded like prior to that. Musicology is a fairly modern invention: writers in earlier ages were not writing from a musicological/academic perspecitve, and in many cases we have no idea how relevant/accurate/informed their writings are.

The "authentic" school grew from several perspectives. One was a new interest in music from a then unknown period (and apart from Handel and Bach anything pre-1750 was just about unknown pre-1950 - including Vivaldis' Four Seasons). The second was a desire to hear the instrumentation it was written for. The third element was to try to get to a performance style that was probably a bit nearer than the then current style.

Any stance taken to extremes is probably not a good place to be in. There is nothing wrong with modern instrument performances of Mozart or Handel and it is probably going too far to apply Baroque styles to mid C19th.

However, the excesses that grew up in the C19th and C20th in the performance of particularly Baroque music had gone too far and the music had got buried. Performances of Messiah with a choir of 300 and a full symphony orchestra (e.g. Hamilton Harty arrangement) were commonplace until post-war.

I also think it patronising to assume that musicians of an earlier period were less capable. The musicians of the Royal chapels and the Colleges were professionial musicians. There is adequate testimony from reputable foreign visitors to England during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth to be fairly sure that the standard of musicianship was very high. Would those performances have sounded like our modern perofrmances? Probably not, not least because our pronunciation of language has changed so much.

I'm not a fan of "absolutisms". I like modern instrument performances of Mozart (e.g. ASMF) but I also like that extra bite you get with period wind instruments and the better balance with narrow bore, softer, brass instruments.

A simple more modern example. In Elgar's scores, he often asks the trombones to play FFF. Just about every conductor asks the trombones to tame that down to FF. Why, was Elgar wrong? No. The modern trombone has a significantly larger bore and bell compared with an instrument from 1900. Modern instruments are much louder.

Music is always evolving.

rovikered - one of my Dearest Friends is a member of two of Sir John Eliot Gardiner's "bands"....The English Baroque Soloists and the Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique. We may indeed not know how things sounded in terms of vibrato but much is known about the actual instruments (said Dear Friend also makes baroque wind instruments) and just how different they are to those we use today. Similarly the two "bands" mentioned make totally different sounds as the instruments are different....Yes, the individual can alter vibrato but the instrument is what it is.

I think the jury will always be out on "authentic" performances. Personally I say it is the MUSIC that always wins - if it is still being played hundreds of years after it was written then that's some legacy. I have a wonderful recording of the Mozart flute concerti with Patrick Gallois playing in a baroque style on a modern flute. It is absolutely stunning if not "authentic."

Anyway, Dearest Friend says the last time he was in a "band" was in 1982 when he had hair and played the bass guitar.

Vibrato-Free-Bag x

Thanks for the musical history lesson, Tenor Viol! In fact, I don't think you and I disagree very much.
From what you write it seems you do not go for extremes. Neither do I. Your citing of the excesses in 'Messiah' performances is appropriate. When I was a boy growing up such performances were still common, but the chamber choir I conducted years ago sang the oratorio well with less than thirty singers + the four soloists.
I endorse your closing sentence, 'Music is always evolving'. It is consistent with mine : ' Variety in interpretation is a joy in music-making'. The interpretation of music continues to evolve and long may it do so!

Not very authentic, but my chamber choir (29 of us) is performing the Bach St. John Passion tomorrow. Our conductor is going to sing the Evangelist role, which means he'll have to sing the lead-in phrase in tempo so that we come in correctly - he won't be able to conduct us in Choir members are taking the solos. Organ with cello for bass continuo.

I entirely agree, Bagpuss. It is the MUSIC which matters.
If it has stood the test of time, it will stand the test of many interpretations in performance whether 'authentic'or otherwise. In fact, standing the test of varied interpretations is part of standing the test of time!

We may not be able to hear the precise sound, but we do know what some of the great violinists were aiming at. In both the Spohr (1832) and Joachim-Moser (1905) violin methods the authors notate pieces with those notes marked on which they consider it appropriate to use vibrato. The implication is that they did not consider continuous vibrato ever to be appropriate. Norrington believes (I don't know what the evidence is) that the first person to play with continuous vibrato was Kreisler, who practised long and hard to achieve it and was very proud of it. However, this view is contradicted by Marc Villeneuve (just before halfway down this web page), who refers to Ole Bull reporting on Paganini's continuous vibrato.

Despite Paganini, it seems very unlikely that orchestral string players were using continuous vibrato during the 19th C. I would expect young soloists to be the first to follow Kreisler's example. I suspect that orchestral string sections changed gradually during the first half of the 20th C. as young players who had learnt continuous vibrato during their studies replaced older ones who had never learnt it and conductors who wanted it found orchestras that could do it. Has anyone got any 1920s or 30s recordings (e.g. Elgar conducting Elgar) to illustrate or contradict this?

I found this bit of the article somewhat odd:

He is concerned that many symphony orchestras have been scared away from some of the greatest music ever written.

"I think those people hijacked that repertory to give themselves something to do," he says.

Hang on. Who hijacked what? This music wasn't written for the symphony orchestra (an invention of the romantic period and later). Whether you choose original instruments or not, authentic performance practices (whatever that means) or not, I personally think one great spinoff of the early music movement has been the revival of smaller orchestras.

It doesn't really matter what instruments you want to play music on. Good music will stand up to most treatments. I definitely prefer my baroque and renaissance on authentic instruments though and classical performed by chamber sized orchestras rather than 100+ behemoths.

I can remember going to concerts with the RLPO in the late 70s/80s and for Mozart or Haydn although woodwind and brass were thinned down, strings were still more-or-less the size you'd need for Tchaikovsky or Mahler... Things have definitely improved in that regard since then!

Yes. The big orchestras are certain more flexible now, but even better in my view is the number of smaller ensembles and chamber orchestras around these days.

I couldn't agree with you more on this . The early music revivalists are simply trying for a degree of expertise in a relatively small (and appropriate to them) corner of music...

Agreed. I went to an ASMF concert in Shrewsbury a few months ago - fab.

I think it helps to remember that it is HIP i.e. Historically Informed Performance, not HDP, Historically Dictated Performance.

I forget the source of this adage, but those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. This is not to say that a modern treatment of an old classic is necessarily wrong, just that if it was wrong in the past, it probably still is and if it was right in the past, maybe it still is as well. The idea that there is only one way, the only right way, i.e. MY way to play any piece of music is simply daft.

As an example, playing JS Bach keyboard music on a piano: Bach knew no such instrument, so historically dictated performance is impossible. How then do we play with an historically informed perspective? Should we try to impersonate something like a harpsichord, putting the music in a strait-jacket and ignoring most of the things about a piano that make a piano worth listening to? Some do this, and to be fair, despite my obvious dislike of this approach, they do it well. Should we make the most of all the extremes of dynamic, articulation, sustain and rubato that we can muster in a quasi-romantic pastiche? Again, it is not to my taste (nor most other modern tastes I think) but some do it and do it well. Or should we look at what Bach did when he had other instruments or ensembles which could play multiple notes and had ranges of dynamic, alternative articulations and decent sustain characteristics, such as orchestras, choirs and so on? If we do that we could come to a way of playing Bach keyboard music that is neither strait-jacketed nor extravagantly ornate: It is a historically informed but pianistic solution.

Of course there are those who are horrified that we play Bach on a piano in the first place . . . Life's too short to bother with such fools!