Talk:Historically informed performance

message: What is being discussed here, the approach or the practicalities? I would suggest that the question of 'authenticity' is philosophical rather than practical. The discussion of instruments and techniques are the mud in these theoretical waters. There should be mention made of the writings of Joseph Kerman, Richard Taruskin and John Butt to name but three. An essential text here would be 'Playing with history' by Butt. Or perhaps I am missing the point?Albinoduck 13:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Authenticity'

message: This is a very good interesting article.  I enjoyed it very much, thank you.  I tend to be enthousiastic about authentic performance, and in fact this article enlightened me about my own listening habits and aesthetical preferences.  I have two questions, and I'd like to politely ask for a slight extension of the article, at least w. r. t. the second question.
In the section "Authenticity or contemporary taste" it reads: "First, it is known from Mozart's correspondence that he was enthusiastic about the idea of performing his symphonies with very large orchestral forces, along the lines of 40 violins, with analogous numbers for the other instruments." Is there any debate about what exactly this means for the performance of the symphonies? My first reaction when reading this was to say to my self "Well, he might have wished for a large orchester, but the music he wrote was written for small ones."  I wonder whether this is actually the case.  This being a somewhat important issue, I'd imagine that it has already been debated.  I could also imagine that there is some reasoning about it possible based on a thorough analysis of Mozart's Symphonies.  (I seem to recall, btw., that there are "authentic" performances of Mozart's symphonies with rather large orchestras.)
:Hi Utis,
:Hmmm, I need to look this up in the book I read it in, which I don't have with me right now.  Bear with me...
The same section also states that "portamento" is hardly used in authentic performances.  While the text describes succesfully what portamento is, it does not say anythinOpinions on the authentic performance movement vary widely, from very strong support to very strong opposition.
A generally skeptical but moderated position has been taken by Charles Rosen, a distinguished traditional classical musician and author on music. One criticism Rosen has made is that the spread of authentic performance has depended very heavily on the recording industry. This results from two factors. First, the lower volume of authentic performance instruments means they tend to be ineffective in large modern concert halls, so that live performance is difficult to sustain financially. Second, the unstable intonation and lesser reliability of early instruments means that a high-quality performance is most easily obtained in the recording studio, where multiple takes can be spliced together to iron out mistakes, and it is possible to interrupt the music frequently to retune the instruments. A musical culture based predominantly on recordings is arguably an impoverished one, given that most listeners respond more intensely to a live performance than to a recording.
There are many listeners who enjoy both authentic performance and traditional performance. Such esthetically-flexible listeners might, for instance, enjoy Malcolm Bilson's vivid and stylish authentic performances of Haydn's piano sonatas on a replica 18th century piano, but also enjoy Vladimir Horowitz's interestingly idiosyncratic (and quite heavily pedaled) performances of the same works on a modern concert grand.g about its musical or aesthetical qualities.  Not bein a trained musician, I understand the words, but I can't imagine "how it would sound", so to say.  What are the reasons that not even proponents of authentic performances want to make use of portamento? -- Utis 13:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give this a try:  basic idea is it slurs the boundaries between the notes.  Opus33 15:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mozart, Portamento

message: This is a well done article, but why is it called "authentic performance?"  I think "period performance" would be a better title because it is more neutral sounding and because the phrase "period performance" is more commonly used.  This article is balanced and its title ought to reflect this balance.
:Please sign your posts. I've never heard the term "period performance." Really the most common term is "performance practice," but "authentic performance" widely used as well. Another common one is "historically informed performance," although that means something slightly different. —Wahoofive | Talk 22:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard of the term "period performance," but I also haven't heard of "authentic performance." "Performance practice" is probably the most widely used and the most neutral term. I believe it is the term used in the Grove Dictionary. "Authenticity" is often a separate issue and a contentious one, and moreover a more modern development than the study of performance practice itself. --Jinnentonik 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've read the article, this seems like it should be titled "Historically informed performance." At the very least there should be an explanation at the beginning.--Jinnentonik 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period Performance 

message: I was surprised that the article made no mention of Arnold Dolmetch and his 1915 book The Interpretation of the Music of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries. I think he made a major contribution to the movement (although opinion of what is truly authentic may have changed since his day). I haven't edited the article because I don't want to damage its overall coherence by tacking on a reference, but suggest that Dolmetch should be credited. Bluewave 10:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not start by adding it to the bibliography? Robert Donington and Thurston Dart should go there too. In fact, the biblio section is currently very strange: a couple of tertiary sources and one very specialized one. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The movement

message: Hello,
Someone started an overall, generic list of authentic performance artists.  But the article already mentions lots of them--in the right places; that is, sorted by kind of performer (fortepianist, countertenor, etc.), and coming after the discussion of the relevant instrument or voice.  I think this is far more useful to a reader than an undifferentiated list would be.  
It's true that to find these lists you have to read the article, but why should we care about Wikipedia users who don't want to bother with reading the article?
B.t.w. if by "Carmina Burana" was meant the work by Carl Orff--that's a 20th century work, meant to be performed by a huge orchestra and chorus using modern instruments.  It wouldn't really fit in here anyway.
Opus33 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's go with more articulated lists

message: I have added a subsection on performance practice in the articles Musicology and Music history.  In both disciplines of course the focus of authentic performance tends to be research rather than the training of players, so the sections only cover a small part of this article's focus.  I would appreciate any contributions.  --Myke Cuthbert 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Musicology, Music History

message: I have changed the name of this article from Authentic performance to Historically informed performance. All history and talk page is retained. Browsing through the talk page comments, there have been a large number of complaints about the name "Authentic", and no real support that I can find. "Historically informed" seems to be preferred. Hope this helps. Comments welcome.
The name "authentic" still appears throughout the article. I'm going to wait a bit before changing those and all the redirects in case there's any contention of the name change. User:Cbrodersen is welcome to and may also change the nomenclature in the article in the course of his proposed revisions. MarkBuckles 19:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: The following section appears to be original research. I've moved it here for comment. MarkBuckles 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought no serious musician or music-lover nowadays would question the rightness of performing early music on period instruments, just as they wouldn't question the rightness of performing Stravinky on 20th-century instruments. There may still be a grey area in the 19th century. Tony (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Taruskin has argued that HIP is really just another trend in contemporary performance.  His articles have been influential so that I propose summarizing them in the "Issues" section (of course adding citations as well).  But I pProbably won't get to it before next week. -- kosboot (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: OR?

message: An issue in authentic performance that is seldom raised concerns just why performers want to be authentic.  It might be argued that what authentic-performance participants want is not always authenticity per se, but particular benefits that come from authenticity, such as clarity, tonal vividness, and rhythmic propulsion.  In fact, it is likely that musical tastes among classical music enthusiasts were already evolving in these directions even before the authentic performance movement had become a major factor.
In this connection, it is worth considering two clearly documented authentic performance practices of the past that have not been widely adopted today.
First, it is known from Mozart's correspondence that he was enthusiastic about the idea of performing his symphonies with very large orchestral forces, along the lines of 40 violins, with analogous numbers for the other instruments.  Thus, the smaller size of Mozart's usual orchestra in the 18th century relative to modern symphony orchestras may well have been the result of economy, rather than a deliberate esthetic choice.  Modern authentic performance orchestras, however, are characteristically small–even though for the more successful ones, funding would probably permit them to be larger, at least on occasion, were it considered desirable.
A second example concerns a matter of authentic performance for string music of the later 19th century.  Sources suggest that at this time, most string players made heavy use of portamento–a sliding of the finger along the string that causes pitch to glide from one note to the next.  Portamento is used sparingly in the performances of contemporary musicians, and there is evidently little wish on the part of authentic performance advocates to revive it.
The common factor of these two examples is that in each, adopting truly authentic performance practices would actually set back the goals of clarity, transparency, and rhythmic liveliness (large ensembles cannot synchronize their playing as easily as small ones can, and portamento blurs the boundary between one note and the next).  This supports the view that the authentic performance movement exists in large part to satisfy musical tastes that were evolving in a particular direction in any event.  To say this, of course, by no means devalues the importance or esthetic contributions of the movement.
>>>My apologies in advance for any formatting issues, as I am new to this.
To respond to the question "why performers want to be authentic", as a musician I would state that in a field where for every actual job there are hundreds of musicians competing for it, being different is a benefit. To work in the music industry in Los Angeles, it is not sufficient to merely to be a exemplary clarinetist, for instance. You are expected to not only be that clarinetist, but also a saxophonist, a flutist, as well as an oboist or bassoonist. In the business of music, the clarinetist will starve while the multi-instrumentalist will find work.
I see the 'Historically informed performance' movement not as a matter of changing tastes among the classical music enthusiasts (though that is a part of the equation) but a matter of musicians desperately attempting to find a niche among a glut of faceless colleagues. Thousands of musicians graduate from colleges and conservatories each year and realize the fact that jobs are not readily available in classical music. A musician wanting to play for a professional symphony orchestra eventually confronts the fact that they are resigned to wait until someone dies for a position to become available. The musician who takes up a 'historic' instrument, however, immediately differentiates himself by choosing the uncommon path. He becomes a specialist, with specialized knowledge, and a readily marketable commodity.
165.30.52.65 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought no serious musician or music-lover nowadays would question the rightness of performing early music on period instruments, just as they wouldn't question the rightness of performing Stravinky on 20th-century instruments. There may still be a grey area in the 19th century. Tony (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Taruskin has argued that HIP is really just another trend in contemporary performance.  His articles have been influential so that I propose summarizing them in the "Issues" section (of course adding citations as well).  But I pProbably won't get to it before next week. -- kosboot (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity or contemporary taste? 

message: Much of this article, although informative and generally well written, reads like a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article.  It would benefit enormously from from inline citations to show that the points being made are not just the opinions of the Wikipedia editors who contributed to it, but are supported by references in accordance with Wikipedia's attribution policy.  I would also suggest that the article consistently use "historically informed performance" rather than "authentic performance" or whatever (except in the intro where the various alternate names are defined).  "Authentic performance" has its own POV problems.  In fact I might just make that change now. Grover cleveland 05:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs more references

message: Just a drive-by comment, but it seems that the last section on historical performance "issues" needs a major overhaul.  The "benefits" list doesn't seem to need citations every sentence (as are currently marked as needed) as much as it needs to have some of the POV and ambiguous claims edited out (e.g., HIP instruments sound "more beautiful" to some listeners??... of course that's true, but it doesn't really give a specific NPOV aesthetic benefit).  Anyhow, it would be better to edit this and include a citation or two (or at least a reference section) that mentions a couple sources that talk about these benefits.  The benefits themselves seem common enough claims by HIP afficionados, so it doesn't seem that there needs to be detailed citation of every one of these claims.
As for the "variety of opinion" section -- there needs to be some real discussion of the actual scholarly, aesthetic, philosophical issues about HIP, rather than an odd citation of Charles Rosen's opinion.  Which, by the way, isn't the best argument... yes, HIP performances don't often work well in huge halls, but if you're paying 100 orchestral performers in a 2,000-seat hall or 10 period performers in a 200-seat church, there isn't such a huge discrepancy in financial support needed.  And, as for the second criticism, this was a major problem in performance 20 or 30 years ago or more, but as more performers have adopted period instruments as their primary instrument, the relative reliability of performance standards has increased.  Period instruments still are often more unreliable, but most of the live period performances by professional ensembles I've heard in the past decade have rivaled any performance on modern instruments in terms of quality.  Moreover, modern instrumental performance was impacted by recordings long before HIP came around -- the remnants of performance practice before 1920 or so in recordings shows that the ability to do multiple takes and the ways to craft performances had a major impact on the way players played.  Recording technology, like it or not, has shaped performance practice for decades before HIP.
Anyhow, Rosen's opinions are still fine to include, but what about having a bit of discussion of the problem of selecting whose scholarly opinion (or what historical source) to use as the basis for period performance?  Or what about the issue of continuously evolving standards of performance... we don't expect that a new conductor will interpret a Beethoven symphony the same way as the previous conductor -- so isn't it possible that some part of a new interpretation could involve modified instruments or new instruments?  Or must we be chained to the score?  And who determines which score is *the* score?  And how do we decide about all the things that aren't in the score and aren't specified in contemporary treatises, etc.?  Do those choices sometimes overwhelm the scant material we actually have in historical treatises (particularly in medieval performance)?  Or, to go even deeper into aesthetic issues, is there necessarily a value in seeking to recreate an acoustical event as close to something that happened in the past as possible, even when audience members won't be able to listen with the ears of historical listeners?  How do we know that our aesthetic experience of Horowitz playing a modern concert grand isn't actually more like the aesthetic experience of a historical listener hearing it on a fortepiano or harpsichord, just because our ears are differently attuned to the modern piano than these older instruments?  The acoustical experience is different, but the quality of the aesthetic experience and our ability to relate to it... well, we can't really know how a historical listener experienced it.  Some of the supposed "benefits" of HIP listed could be artifacts more of the way HIP ensembles choose to perform beyond what they know about period performance, rather than benefits from the instruments and often vague historical accounts.  People who listen to early recordings (pre-1930 or so) often have disdain for the performance practices of that time, even when they were performing music that was written roughly in that period... I know I've often heard modern listeners (even fairly educated classical listeners) say that an early recording had poor performers or poor performance standards even when the "defects" of that recording are often due to performance practice of that time... how do we reconcile reactions like this with the goals of HIP?
Etc.  These are just a few suggestions of possible topics that could be considered.  Right now the "issues" section only gives us a vague and somewhat POV perspective on benefits and a woefully incomplete picture of possible criticisms/other issues. 24.147.123.214 05:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with a lot of this.  This article has had a lot of citation flags for some time.  As pointed out in the last comment, a lot of it just needs to be edited, rather than requiring citations every sentence.  (For example, "Musical students have, over the centuries, learned ways of playing and interpreting music from their teachers, and from performers that they heard.[citation needed]"  Really?  We need a citation to prove that music students have learned ways of playing and interpreting music from their teachers?  Isn't that asking for a citation of the definition of "teacher" and "student"?  And particularly if they haven't had formal training (but even if they have), surely music students learn about how to perform music by listening to performances.  This is like asking for a citation of a statement that barely goes beyond tautological.  There are a few other "citation needed" flags that are similarly problematic, and many others that need editing more than the introduction of dozens of references.)  Of course, there are places that citations are needed, but since many of these flags haven't been changed in while, perhaps the first step is some basic editing to get rid of POV and bad writing. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. In terms of the number of citation and weasel word flags it contains, this article is a disgraceful mess, and the people responsible for scattering flags all over an article that they disagree with should be ashamed of themselves and should refrain from further editing on Wikipedia. If you think a citation is missing and you can provide it, you provide it. If you think a statement is unsupportable, you cut it. If you think something is weasel wording, you fix the wording. That is the behaviour of a responsible user. What the enemies of this article have done is to irresponsibly and lazily spray their contempt all over it without bothering to get down to the serious work of making it better, which I think is despicable behaviour. There are some statements where a citation is needed, and if I could provide one I would, but I am not an expert in this subject. In the meantime I entirely agree that this article is in dire need of attention from somebody who is reasonably neutral on the subject of period performance and that the most glaring flag-stickers should be warned off and blocked from editing this article, if necessary. Lexo (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This more or less dispassionate editor just had a quick look, and I'll go so far as to say there isn't a single justified weasel tag in the whole article. Prefacing something with "usually" is far from weaselry, and the one at the "players of early trumpets and horns" is pretty egregious in its um, unfitness. I'm going to get rid of them all, and will be standing by to revert any drive-by tagging in days to come. You want the tag to stick, please discuss it here, at least a little. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I am also pruning the  tags. Tagging a prefatory sentence is silly, when there are specifics mentioned immediately afterwards, subject to their own tags. Some tags seem frivolous and nit-picking of what ought to be uncontroversial assertions, leading me to suspect the motivation for the whole lot. Again, you want the tag to stick, please discuss it here, at least a little. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To Lexo:  Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors.  Confine your comments to the content, not the editor.  For example, "the people responsible ... should be ashamed of themselves and should retrain from further editing"; "enemies of this article"; "irresponsibly"; "lazily"; "despicable behavior"; etc.  I don't know whether you are the person who originally wrote much of the material that was flagged, but even if you are, please try to keep focused on the task of improving the encyclopedia, not on personal feelings.  That way we can all make Wikipedia a better place.  You may also want to check out WP:V and WP:NOCITE for Wikipedia's policies on citations and verifiability.  Cheers.  Grover cleveland (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, so I have boldly removed most of the unsupported claims, some of which have been carrying flags since April 2007. Some of the material—perhaps even most of it—may be correct, but the end effect was like a personal essay containing mainly original research. Before someone flies off the handle here, all of this material is recoverable from the edit history. However, I suggest that no item be returned to this article without a reference source being added to support the claim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One big step towards a better article. There is no deadline. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I've started picking away at it, restoring some uncontroversial text in the Recorder section, which may help form a basis for a decent article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Good start. I had two very small quibbles with the "uncontroversial" part, but it shouldn't require a source (just don't get me started on historical recorder sizes, and in particular Praetorius's gar klein Flötlein, which isn't a recorder at all). I agree that there is no deadline, but nearly three years is ridiculous, and it really shouldn't take as much as three months to find verification for at least some of those claims.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues

message: It says, "Incorporating in the performance cultural elements of the composer, as opposed to omitting them in total favour of the listener's culture, results in a stronger and deeper performance rendition."
What exactly does this mean? What is a stronger performance rendition? A deeper performance rendition? "Deeper" in what way? How is it measured, what is it compared to. This sounds a lot like the puffery I would expect to read on a record company's album sleeve.
2601:9:2780:1E3:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Pretty much the whole "issues" section suffers from buzzwords, half-expressed thoughts, out-of-context quotes, and incoherent paragraphs. It might be helpful to separate the concepts of "issues" (such as uncertainty about what original performances were really like) from philosophical disagreements (e.g. how much weight to give to replicating performance practices of the past vs expectations of modern audiences).  —Wahoofive (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the article is written without citations, so it probably is just taken from CD booklets and fawning articles.  I've wanted to incorporate some of what Taruskin says (namely that HIP is a 20th century idea). but I'd have to rewrite the article. ;) -- kosboot (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not look to me that the article is entirely without citations. The section under discussion, however, does indeed represent some sort of pinnacle of awfulness, and various incomprehensible and unlikely claims have been flagged for a shamefully long time. I have therefore taken the comparatively easy step of removing them. The hard work of writing a meaningful discussion of these issues remains.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Good start, although I think we might junk the section header "Issues" and go back to the origins of the movement, with Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Alfred Deller and books such as Robert Donington's. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "Three Ds" used to include Thurston Dart and, especially, Arnold Dolmetsch in addiion to Donington, and they had their precursors right back to the English antiquarians and some members of the Cecilian Movement in the last half of the 19th century. However, Wikipedia guidelines do encourage the inclusion of sections like this one, which are usually titled "Reception". With the addition of Richard Taruskin, we now have the views of the most important (and best-known) skeptic, well-referenced and I think fairly represented. Because of the badly written and unreferenced remainder, I think we may safely predict the imminent demise of the entire HIP movement ;-), unless some attention is soon paid to other points of view. It would be especially useful to have something on the response from Taruskin's critics, since there is nothing quite so exciting as a public brawl, though of course earlier skeptics (Ralph Vaughan Williams comes to mind) and "defenders of the faith" would also be useful. If I recall correctly, Richard's original blast was in a special editorial feature in an issue of Early Music magazine back in the early 1980s—a sort of round-table critique of the strengths and shortcomings of the HIP movement up to that point. I believe Michael Morrow (of Musica Reservata fame) was one of the other contributors. I think it might be useful to start there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, you just made me recognize that all the people who spoke about HIP before there was HIP (I forget which conductor - Bruno Walter or Thomas Beecham - likened the sound of a harpsichord to a broken car or something like that).  With time I could probably find more that support Taruskin's point of view.  I could also flesh out his ideas a bit more.  -- kosboot (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there were plenty of quips, but the Vaughan Williams example I am thinking of was quite sustained and was not just "off the top of his head", but a passage in a published book (I can't remember the title, but it was quite a slim volume). Pierre Boulez also published a fairly extended diatribe against HI performances, I think some years before Taruskin. I remember a particularly tart phrase about the "authentic performance" devotees who would love nothing more than a recording of the world premiere of Fidelio, with all its lovely out-of-tune instruments, wrong notes, and missed entrances. Fleshing out Richard's ideas would be helpful in the long term but not, I think, at the expense of ignoring other points of view.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I feel beginning a paragraph with a poor metaphor is bad writing, so I removed the sentence fragment entirely.  Maybe one can try such things in a literary work, but encyclopedic writing should resist such literary exercises. - kosboot (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the "Issues" section 

message: I wonder if this article is becoming too much a catalog of instruments.  I think a brief mention of the instruments would be sufficient and that articles on the individual instruments could discuss their attributes.  To make the HIP movement primarily about instruments seems mis-balanced in my opinion. - kosboot (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is particularly odd because instrumental music only became important as a separate category at the beginning of the 17th century, when the period usually addressed by HIP was nearly over.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a tad strong, Mr. Kohl. Almost all Baroque performances are scrutinized from a HI perspective nowadays, and it's been creeping into Mozart and Beethoven for a while. The only boring performance I've ever heard of the Eroica Symphony was twenty years ago when a well-known early music group performed it with every detail subjected to intense performance-practice love, with the result that every articulation was perfect but the music never went anywhere. A Beethoven symphony, dull?! —Wahoofive (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the title of this article was "Historically informed performance", not "Historically informed performance of Baroque and post-baroque music". My mistake. As for baroque music itself, the emphasis on instruments is still a gross distortion, since the dominant musical form of the period was opera (in those days, customarily placing singers in the spotlight while relegating instruments to the pit).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "the period usually addressed by HIP" is open to misunderstanding isn't it? I'm all in favor of giving Riffkin and Cardine their due, but I suspect more frequenters of Early Music festivals worry about backfalls than quillismas. What bothers me most about the article at present is a lack of perspective on the movement of which HIP is the latest incarnation (it's jarring to read Landowska "is" a leading harpsichordist). Period instrument bands have certainly played a leading role, with the 'a cappella heresy' controversy coming along only in the 1980's. One way of addressing things would be to discuss the harpsichord-recorder-viol-fortepiano revivals in that order, and to include Schweizer and Moeck. Sparafucil (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments 

message: It seems to me that "issues" should cover ongoing issues and debate in and around the movement, not every thing anybody has said about it. I've moved philosophical objections to the movement into the "criticism" section instead.
I also feel like this section should be renamed "reception" or something so positive views on the movement can be included as well.  Rufe12 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Criticism" does often carry only a negative tone, though this should not be the case. I agree that Reception" is a better heading, since it avoids this misunderstanding.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  At least given the current content of the section (which is almost entirely critical), calling it "Reception" implies that the reception of historically informed performance has been mostly negative.  Maybe "Critiques" would convey the tone of the section better?  Alternatively, one could add more positive reactions to this style of performance (which has been hugely influential) to the "Reception" section. Klausness (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues and criticism sections 

message: I've been watching videos and reading some documents provided by an advocate of Whole Beat Metronome Practice. The theory is that in its original use, two swings of the metronome (left and right) were considered to represent a single whole beat. Current convention assigns every swing to a beat. This implies that many pre-20th century compositions (by Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann and many others) are today played far faster than originally intended. He presents many pieces of documentary evidence (see, for example, this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oh5v8hhs3Y), as well as claiming the absurdity or impossibility of playing many pieces (such as Beethoven's sonatas) at the prescribed metronome setting, according to the current prevailing metronome practice. And he interviews other musical researchers who have arrived at similar conclusions and published their own findings. I have left a similar comment at Talk:Metronome, and have started to gather some sources for and against this theory there. I will not repeat them here to avoid having two lists to maintain. Discussion should probably also be in Talk:Metronome.
This may be a valuable subject to have a section on in the 'Historically informed performance article. It seems there is both a body of modern scholarship and a rich collection of historical sources to draw from. If someone feels like making a start on describing the theory here, with the key arguments of its proponents and detractors, it would be a great addition. I may get around to it myself, but probably not for a while... Fuzzypeg★ 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole Beat Metronome Practice 

message: Someone obviously had an ax to grind in this section and elsewhere. Probably this is a long way from encyclopedic. ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the history you'll see that many people (not just a single individual) contributed to that section. So if there's an ax to grind, it's handled by many editors. - kosboot (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues and criticism sections again 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically informed performance →  – grammar Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 December 2022