Behind the Scenes, Part I

If the early music movement had to fight its way to recognition by way of some basic clichéd principles such as the banning of vibrato and the fussing over correct ornamentation, then where are we now, more than half a century later? This post will be the first in a series of posts that discuss what are generally considered the guiding principles of good music making in today's early music world.

To begin with, I will focus on the "behind-the-scenes" elements to early music making; the elements which we believe are important to consider before even playing a single note. Later posts will feature more specific elements of performance (such as the use of vibrato) that make a significant difference in the actual playing of the music itself.

1. Use of appropriate instruments and materials

Central to historically inspired performance is the belief that the most ideal instruments to use for any particular piece of music are those instruments that existed and were used at the time of composition.

World War III

Those who know me on Facebook may well have seen that one of my favourite quotes comes from violinist Pinchas Zukerman (pictured), who in 1991 said of the Early Music movement:

"...all this Norrington/Hogwood nonsense. That is absolute and complete asinine stuff. I mean it has nothing to do with music, it has nothing to do with historical performance. Zero. It's nothing, it means nothing...it's made for people who have no sound and no ability to make sound ... it is a complete and absolute farce, it is F**ING AWFUL, it is DISGUSTING...I daresay that in seventy-five years people will listen to his (Heifetz') rendition of a Mozart concerto rather than some idiot that played it on an authentic instrument..."

Then, proving that his opinions weren't specific to certain players and hadn't softened over time, Zukerman followed up in 2000 with:

Truth and Conviction

In launching a blog which features the notion of truth at its core, I may well have shot myself in the foot before I've even started. Because what is truth? As someone I know put it to me after he read my first blog: "Isn't the truth different according to different people?" Is truth, as I claimed earlier, "a fixed entity" - something that just is - or do we humans have individual experiences and beliefs that can be shaped into something that can just as validly be called 'truth'?

In looking up the dictionary, I see that truth is several things: 1. the quality or state of being true; 2. that which is true or in accordance with facts or reality; and 3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true. This last definition is the most interesting to me, and I emphasised the word accepted because it indicates that a fact which may not, upon future investigation, turn out to have been fact, can still be considered true if it was widely accepted to be true at the time.