Let's Evolve.

 Paul Hindemith advocates the restoration of instruments and performing practices of Bach’s age.  Therefore saying that a composer only fits in the restraints of his own time, therefore, constructing instruments of the time would give back the essence of what the composer really intended.  This can be seen as a modern invention, rather than a return to the past.  Theodor Adorno feels that reconstructing the past is in the wake of depersonalizing forces of industrialism and capitalism.   It is a sense of irreversibility, and leaning toward modernistic ideas.

I say never be complete. I say stop being perfect.
I say let's evolve. Let the chips fall where they may


       Taruskin uses Stravinksy as an example that even when you compose in the past (his neo-classical era) it is still riddled with twentieth century concepts.  The ears are tuned into the sound of Stravinsky, not the sounds of the classical era.  Therefore, we would have to start from scratch and never have given our ears the chance to hear what we’ve already heard.  There isn’t an authentic representation of the past; it will always be a copy of a copy. SO why even try?

      Nikolaus Harnoncourt  was recording with early instruments in the 1960’s and wrote several essays on his "pioneering period" that ultimately popularized the virtues of associating early music with its original performance practice.  For some reason, just because you write essays and make a recording or two, you suddenly become the authority.  The popular, mainstream idea.

      Laurence Dreyfus builds on Adorno’s view but adds the question “ why the historically 'correct' performance of music should become such a particular issue in the late twentieth century?”  He also states how wrong it is to refer to this view as a “thing”.  A few other critics are Joseph Kerman, with his observations on musicology and how ALL points of musicology should point towards criticism, rather than studying music as an artifact.  Richard Taruskin (well respected music scholar) criticizes historically informed performances, or HIP (leave it to the non performing musicologist to make "hip" un hip) being a symptom of twentieth century modernism.
           
     Modernism fames on defamiliarization, as does HIP with earlier music.  HIP is a symptom of twentieth century modernism. HIP can be counter-cultural by overthrowing accepted models of musical taste, and threatens civilized society.  Leads to equality of members, no sense of hierarchy, crossover between professional and amateur performance and on the same level as the audience. 

     


      Robert Morgan links HIP to society as a whole characterized by insecurity, uncertainty and self-doubt. Anxiety for short.  He criticizes the overwhelming amount of multi-culturalism in music based on an unawareness of the current state of music.  Saying that all culture is available is saying the same as no culture at all.   HIP is a last resort for western music.  There isn’t a clear divide between the past and the present.  Lately, I've noticed music and art as a whole coming out of a "museum culture" mentality. Combining nearly dead items of culture in one place and expecting it to be something new and invigorating.  I have highly strong opinions about this.  Although I do understand that lineage is important, we can’t keep living in the past.  The reason most of those “timeless” pieces are timeless, is NOT because we keep playing them, but rather the incredible amount of ingenuity and IN THE MOMENT character they have.

   
      Jumping ahead with HIP being apart of a museum, culture is a conception of the sanctity of places and times, persons and offices, customs and rites.  Resurrecting past ensemble stylings perpetuates the inequality of the political system.  In the end, restoring the past does not bring the original political connotations with it. (Replace ensemble stylings with anything.) What most of us do in the present has nothing to do with wanting to change the future. Likewise, we don't anticipate having the people look back on our accomplishments to try and recreate the social environment.  

      Responsibility. What I understand the word to mean in music is, the composer has a job and the performer has a job and the audience has a job.  Don’t try to be all three.  There is a sense of responsibility that Taruskin implies that most musicians WANT to be all three so they can experience the music in all three perceptions. To give credit where credit is due.  The composer as an authority, in some artists minds, there is never any place for the performers interpretation, only the audiences interpretation.

      Taruskin does mention that reconstructing should add to the creative pile, NOT replace the pile entirely.  He says tradition is cumulative and therefore has many steps, accepting and messy, or in other words, human.  Music is not about what is on the page, but the interaction, and reaction.  HIP is productive if it spawns its own tradition.

      On a final note, evaluate yourself, are you a "straight" performer or a "crooked" performer.  The words may be misleading, so I'll define them. Straight performance is one that does exactly what’s on the page with audience expectations that are meant and satisfied.  Crooked performances are “real artists” who don’t respond to generic demands that can be classified, but by personal and intensely subjective imagination.

     

     I prefer to be crooked.