'Historically-Informed Performance'...
In Historically-Informed Performance, the search for 'authenticity' should not be regarded as the primary purpose - rather, it should be seen as an invaluable part of the creative process, and a stimulus to creating circumstances likely to lead to interesting, committed performances. In addition to using period instruments, performing with historically appropriate numbers of players and singers is central to creating a vivid sound and maintaining communication between the musicians. In particular, this frequently means that instead of a traditional 'choir', these parts are replaced by a quartet of soloists - 'One Voice Per Part'. The idea that the 'normal' performance practice during the 17th and 18th centuries was in fact 'OVPP' (a convenient abbreviation) was the inevitable conclusion of research by Joshua Rifkin, and was further adopted and championed by Andrew Parrott, whose very readable book, 'The Essential Bach Choir', sets out the arguments very clearly. It applies in much music from Italy and Germany, and generally includes the vocal works of J.S. Bach.This has been a hotly-debated issue in recent years, and though the idea has wide acceptance, performances in concert halls are clearly dominated by traditional choral versions. Leaving aside theory, OVPP performance presents us with various practical advantages, chief among which are:
- singers are better able to project text and personality within 'choral' parts
- instrumentalists, too, are challenged to take command of their lines in a more soloistic way
- since the group is smaller, communication is easier, so there is less dependence on a conductor
- the counterpoint gains in freedom
... and its limits
Musicology gives fascinating insights into ancient styles, but today's musicians must also stay true to their own instincts if they are to give convincing performances. There are many circumstances which cannot be re-created in the twenty-first century, and we should always bear in mind that historical authenticity is not only unattainable, but it should never be an objective in itself. Indeed, it is striking how many of the elements that make up a modern 'historically-informed' musical experience must differ from the original performance, especially when one looks beyond the stage itself. Here are some to consider - some obvious, but worth re-stating, and some maybe less immediately apparent:- Voice types - boys' voices broke much later than now, so Bach had more mature, better-trained boy sopranos and altos. Today we employ professional female sopranos, and either counter-tenors or female altos. The question of counter-tenors is a matter of debate, but women certainly would not have been heard in England, nor in eighteenth-century Lutheran churches. In English music, wholesale transposition of an entire repertoire has resulted in fundamental changes to the sound of the music (see below).
- Architecture and the audience - rather than be able to see the performance, most of the congregation would have sat below the musicians (who performed in the gallery) with their backs to them. However, from an acoustical point of view, singers at the front of a gallery, with the orchestra behind them, are at a considerable advantage.
- Transposition and transcription - the great Early Music revival started with the question of playing on 'original instruments', and later moved on to the debate around vocal numbers. However, many other performing traditions - perfectly sympathetic to the music, it must be stressed - have become firmly established, which skew the sound and the overall balance in ways which would surprise the composers of the day. In English church music, for instance, the needs of the traditional Anglican Cathedral choir has resulted in the routine upward transposition of much of the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth century repertoire. The effect is to hand the tenor lines (which had been the principal voice since mediæval times - the clue being in the name!) to counter-tenors. For example, in Gibbons' 'This is the record of John', instead of a tenor singing with a clear, bright voice in a strong and colourful part of his range, the consequence was for this crucial story-telling to be uttered at the bottom of a counter-tenor's voice, a region generally weak, and far from its strongest or most expressive register. Furthermore, the practice of re-scoring the contrapuntal lines of the viol consort for an inappropriate style of organ resulted in a lack of clarity and balance problems. Performing this repertoire with viols - even with the larger numbers of a modern 'Oxbridge' chapel choir - does away with these familiar drawbacks. Performing with the appropriate vocal numbers - as we do - further restores the natural balance of the music.
- Organs - in German churches the performing area was dominated by the main organ, generally hung on the west wall of the building. Instead of being physically confined within the group of players, as modern box organs are, the absolute reverse was the case - these organs spatially surrounded the other instruments and singers. To what extent they dominated the sound is a matter for conjecture (and experiment, though this is hampered by organs - even historic ones - being tuned in ways which make them difficult to combine with period instruments), but what is certain is that they had the capacity to be far more present in the texture than in today's performances. The other reason for big organs being so little used nowadays to accompany other instruments is the matter raised in 'Architecture' above - we like to be able to watch a performance as well as hear it (and preferably without getting a stiff neck). 'Audiences', as opposed to 'congregations', pay to attend, and consequently today's musicians must perform where they can be seen.
In the Anglican setting of English cathedrals and Oxford and Cambridge chapels, we have become used to hearing organ accompaniments played on indistinct flute stops, with much filling-in of inner parts. Evidence suggests that Tudor organs were quite different in sound, almost shockingly punchy and 'present', and that the spare two part accompaniment commonly surviving was in fact what was played, without further thickening of the texture. - Linguistic, cultural and religious context - all of these areas can present obstacles between ancient works and modern audiences, which we must deal with as best we can. However, we should not underestimate our audiences - today's 'art as religion' culture might not be so far removed from the 18th century bourgeoisie's delight in the weekly cantata. Just as in an audience today, there would have been a range of expectations and levels of appreciation. Some present, surely, must have entertained the (furtive?) hope that today Herr Bach would have been able to muster his finest musicians, and that this would be one of those very special Sundays.
