In quest of the distinctive language of Classical and Romantic performance

Abstract

Readers of this review may notice echoes of other pieces I have recently contributed to Early Music,1 and think, perhaps, that I am becoming as relentless as Cato the elder, with his reiterated demand for the destruction of Carthage. A reviewer of period-instrument recordings for the specialist readership of Early Music, however, must necessarily consider either the extent to which recordings reflect our current knowledge of historical performing practices, or, alternatively, whether they offer a coherent and convincing rationale for not doing so. Indeed, in this journal, it seems to me, it is more necessary to focus on these matters than upon general questions of musicality and repertory. This is an uncomfortable position for the reviewer, who may have great respect for the musicianship, skill and professional discipline of the musicians who have made the recordings, yet feels obliged to focus attention on disparities between their manner of performing and the historical practices that are so copiously documented in treatises, journals, letters, annotated editions and early recordings. During the past 20 years, documentary and practice-led research into the performing practices of Classical and Romantic music has made it abundantly clear that musical notation communicated quite different messages to composers and performers of these periods from those it conveys to the conventionally trained modern musician. Yet, despite much interest from individual professional musicians, the results of that research are still scarcely discernible in performances by period-instrument ensembles.