Period instruments?

Posted by: stephenjohn on 11 October 2002

Recently, on the Bach topic, some of us have talked about liking Bach on the piano. For example Glen Gould or Angela Hewitt. Thinking about this, it occurred to me that, piano excepted, I almost always buy recordings made with period instruments. So I asked my self why, and couldn’t come up with a convincing answer, which is where you guys come in. Why should we stick to period instruments?
I can see a philosophical argument about getting as close to what the composer intended, but musically, do they offer a sweeter sound? A softer sound? Another kind of sound? Is any one else as inconsistent as I am, i.e. preferring the piano to the harpsichord but period instruments for the rest? How would a modern violin make the Partitas sound? etc

Posted on: 12 October 2002 by JeremyB

Really interesting post!

In Muso land, period instruments has the image of Berkenstocks, not shaving and other "luddite" references which I think is unfair. On the other hand, bang up to date classical music sounds are preferred by those who claim tonal superiority and greater freedom for artistic interpretation offered by "modern" instruments. As usual, the ideal may lay somewhere in between. The parallels with hifi sound and round/flat earth are remarkable if not direct.

I think that the greatest fundamental difference is in the pitch. For modern orchestras A=440Hz whereas "period" pitch may be as low as A=410Hz - as if the piece is played in a different key (not to mention the many different types of temperament used). Some consider that there are compromises available such as using period instruments but at a slightly lower pitch or with a different temperament.

In the end it's the musical message that matters and I think it is wise to be open to consider a performance whether it is played on period instruments or not.