The Benefits of studying Bach

I think it is quite possible that all of music is codified in Bach, and that if you fully comprehended it, there would be nothing more to know.

I think this is true, and the happy thought is that even in a long lifetime you could never exhaust the mine of invention Bach's music. You never have it completely comprehended. I think once one has really completely comprehened a piece of art it is time to move on to another!

What is certain for me is that Bach never palls at least in the long term. It is possible to overload it, but in a week off it is back to full enjoyability. No other composer seems like this for me [except Haydn], and as you say going to Beethoven [for example], the music seems very fresh and more easily understood after listening to a large amount of Bach first! I completely agree that this is true. Bach does not clutter the ears up with his own personaility and breed expectations that all music should be like his, so much as make other music seem even more amazing than previously thought ...

I tend to think the Bach might well be called the father of all modern music!

And he has something for everyone, and for every mood. From jolly and tuneful music to the most reflective and uplifting, and even the most accademically dense also, but which, though difficult to appreciate at first pass in some cases, is never merely dry in the accademic sense, but dripping with human emotion and warm once you get past the sometimes austere surface of some of it.

If I had to choose just one composer, then Bach would be he, though I would miss Haydn very much if that were forced on me.

ATB from George

Gentleman I am as new as it is possible to be to Bach. Indeed all classical music was, until very recently, an entirely closed world to me. Something i've come to very much regret.

All I own is the Pinnock Avie set of the Brandenburg concertos. (Suggested to me by C. Bruenig of Hi-Fi News).

This has become to me the most wonderful piece of music I have ever heard.

I hope you will therefore forgive what must be an oft repeated question and lead me to further discoveries.

I have tried to get together a good collection and there is a fine classical section in a shop near me.

However, beginning from a position of total ignorance, the field is simply to vast to make a dent in without spending a fortune i don't have on recordings that i cannot tell beforehand are even adequate never mind exceptional.

So my polite request, bordering on begging, is that you may point out to me perhaps a dozen of what you consider to be the man's best. I am very much interested in concertos similar to the Brandenburgs, if there are more, but i am also desperate to appreciate a much larger variety of what appears to be an enormous output. Quality of recording is as important to me as quality of performance and i'm happy to pay a premium for something special.

Thank you if you're able to help. Regards, Paul.

George will have a different take on this, but I would recommend the Hewitt 2009 recordings of the Well Tempered Clavier as a point of entry. If you want to learn more about these, she has produced an excellent master class DVD, which will help no end in understanding this music.

This is the finest piano recording I have ever heard :-)

I am going to use this opportunity in answering your question to entice George to write here again.

I feel the fundamental difference between George and I in our pursuit of music is that I yearn for the excitement of performance, the human drama of a performer bringing a work to life in the here and now. As such, my collection documents decade by decade the attempts to realize the music of a composer. In all fairness, George has helped me flush out some of the earlier decades.

Those materials George provided me resolved one issue. Every generation has produced performers who can bring music before their time to life.

I feel George is staring into the soul of the music itself. I don't know if such a thing can be. In the absence of performance, what is there to see? Is there meaning beyond the social pact of music?

On his current path, George may answer this.

Then again, who can say?

Tomorrow I will try to make a nice post with a list of Bach's music in recommendable recorded performances. The list may be longer than for a single visit to the record shop, amazon or whatever, so I will try to grade it with a sensible order. First to get at the top and so on!

It will all be opinion and I guess that Mike might have a quite different order of ceremonies!

ATB from George

quote:

All I own is the Pinnock Avie set of the Brandenburg concertos. (Suggested to me by C. Bruenig of Hi-Fi News).

This has become to me the most wonderful piece of music I have ever heard.

Hi Paul. The very same Pinnock recordings of the Brandenburgs were my (late) entry into the world of classical music. Since then I have come to love Bach above all other composers - simply put, listening to his work restores my faith in music (and occasionally in humanity) whenever I'm feeling jaded.

If you're looking for something in a similar vein to the Brandenburgs, try the Violin Concertos. I can recommend the recording on Phillips featuring the great Belgian violinist, Arthur Grumiaux.

After that, maybe some solo keyboard works. I love the Well Tempered Clavier, but would suggest starting with the Goldberg Variations, which start with an especially beautiful "aria". I've lost track of the number of recordings I have of this, but I repeatedly come back to Angela Hewitt's on the Hyperion label. George is better placed than I am to suggest a strong harpsichord version, but I remember enjoying a recording by Gustav Leonhardt very much.

I also enjoy other solo instrumental works - especially the Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin (I recommend Rachel Podger's recording on Channel Classics), and the Cellos Suites (Rostropovich on EMI, though I'm sure there are many good alternatives).

Beyond all this there are the great choral works, dozens of cantatas, and challenging later works such as the Art of Fugue.

It's no exaggeration to say that once I "clicked" with Bach, it felt like I understood music for the first time. I wish you well in your explorations.

Nigel

Personally, I cannot stomach listening to Hewitt's Bach. Very, very mundane! It's a shame that people are afraid to 'interpret' Bach... I bet Bach would've hated Angela Hewitt!

Bernard Roberts' 48 are superb (Nimbus, I believe).

Anything by Pinnock is top-notch (I actually stayed at his house last weekend... and had a little tinkle on one of his many harpsichords!).

He is pretty much one of today's best Baroque-based musicians. The Flute Sonatas with Emmanuel Pahud are my new reference recroding (the cellist, whose name escapes me, is someone to watch out for.

It is worth mentioning that Glenn Gould's Bach was (and still is) quite ground-braking! Don't say I haven't warned you!!

quote:

Personally, I cannot stomach listening to Hewitt's Bach. Very, very mundane! It's a shame that people are afraid to 'interpret' Bach... I bet Bach would've hated Angela Hewitt!

Hi Dan. I sort of understand what you mean. Hewitt's approach is certainly highly polished, bordering on the too polite. However, when the end result is so beautiful, I find that I just don't care. I enjoy Gould's more idiosyncratic takes on the Goldbergs too.

Of course, George may pop in tomorrow to argue that Bach would have hated Gould!

To reiterate, Hewitt's 2009 Well Tempered Clavier is not to be missed. Full of life and electricity, and the best recording ever of a piano to boot.

The Sonatas and Partitas for Violin are quite special. I have a Perlman I really enjoy, and a Sholomo Mintz I am just now beginning to explore.

I'm very fond of Daniel Barenboim's Well Tempered Clavier ... profound musicality in all regards.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Tomorrow I will try to make a nice post with a list of Bach's music in recommendable recorded performances. The list may be longer than for a single visit to the record shop, amazon or whatever, so I will try to grade it with a sensible order. First to get at the top and so on!

It will all be opinion and I guess that Mike might have a quite different order of ceremonies!

ATB from George

George
That would be most appreciated.
You have suggested some Bach to me previously, which I still thoroughly enjoy.
Further ideas from you will be eagerly awaited.
PS
Should I start a thread called "where to start with Haydn" as well?
Regards
Matt.

Yes, it can be beautiful, but I'm not sure that Bach and beauty go together all of the time. Bach was a very 'grass roots' composer, and it is easy to skim over harmonic mechanisms, passages of intense polyphony, etc. with 'beauty', and I'm afraid that's what AH does. Superficial Bach.


I'm glad that someone is enjoying Hewitts pianism ... Full of electricity? Well, my energy saver bulbs are full of electricity - but they're still hopeless!

The problem is, she doesn't do anything. As I've said, Bernard Roberts is far, far superior. No question! Check them out.

I can say, though, AH's French music is, in places, rather good.

From the little snippets I've head from Barenboim, they sound very good. Won't comment until I've analysed the set.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan Carney:
I'm afraid that's what AH does. Superficial Bach.

The problem is, she doesn't do anything.

Others are hearing something here that you are missing. If you were more specific, we might know what eludes you.

I find her treatments very lucid, with excellent presentation of the voices, a beautiful and expressive touch and revealing dynamics and rhythm. Her voicing and use of meter make every suspension stand proud, and no voice is ever obscured.

Overall, it breathes life into the music.

My wife has made quite a study of baroque performance practice, and to her ears it is not only stunningly beautiful, but very true to performance practices in Bach's time.

Most important, I find I connect with Hewitt's reading on a fundamental level, and this connection grows with each repeated listening.

That's what I want from a recorded performance, and Hewitt is delivering in spades.

Hewitt released an excellent DVD on performance practice for Bach. You should seek it out.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

My wife has made quite a study of baroque performance practice, and to her ears it is not only stunningly beautiful, but very true to performance practices in Bach's time.

That is a very large, and bold claim. Some of the world's most prolific musicologists have 'ideas', but nobody can really claim to be true to the performance practices of Bach et al.
World leading academics/performers cannot decide on the 'correct' performance practices eitherAt most, we can make an educated guess. Nothing more. Please tell me, what type of instrument was she playing on?

I believe, the end result is everything. One could even say that research is meaningless, as we will never know how Bach would have played/what performance practices were in place - and if we did strike lucky, how would we know?

However, AH probably believes that she is correct, and I'm not saying she's wrong, but that she plays Bach in a very mundane way. If her research into performance practice has led her to play in such a way, then so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan Carney:
AH probably believes that she is correct, and I'm not saying she's wrong, but that she plays Bach in a very mundane way. If her research into performance practice has led her to play in such a way, then so be it.

I don't understand mundane in this context. If you said her performance was so like the performance of others (named others), therefore mundane, that would make some sense.

Mundane in the context of your post has no meaning. It is a slur on her efforts, as it is unexplained.

My understanding of historical performance practice is that the artist makes as comprehensive a study as they are able, and devises a technique that illuminates the artist' conclusions without violating the performer's internal logic. Hewitt has provided evidence she did this on her DVD. There is nothing more she can do, short of claiming first hand knowledge of Bach's practices, which is an impossibility.

She plays a Fazioli Grand, which I think to be one of the world's great instruments. I will not listen to the harpsichord, which I consider a fatally flawed instrument with a severely crippled expressive potential, best left consigned to the dustbins of history. But that is just my taste.

I am deeply interested in the musical preferences of others when they are positive, and suspicious of negative reactions in anyone, including myself. Those positive reactions are full of musical meanings, while the negative reactions say more about the mental state of the listener than they do of the performance.

Any performer with the mental and emotional focus to learn the 48 and perform them is someone who should enjoy your full attention. It is a bit of work to feel empathy for a performer's intentions, but I find it worth the effort when you can pull it off.

Doing so vastly improves the pool of music that refreshes and illuminates.

So how is the performance mundane?

Mundane, adjective, meaning common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.

You say impossibility, yet in your previous post you state they were 'very true'. How do you know this? How can you claim such a fact? She is playing on a Fazioli!!


As it happens, I know all of the 48 (as well as the partitas), and over the years have performed them, in various combinations.

The Bach of AH, is almost like a computer rendition. Accurate, reasonably fluid, but soulless.

Her approach of articulation is very 'samey', her dynamics are too constrained, although, her judgements regarding tempi are often ok.

From your comments regarding the Harpsichord, I can now judge your musical intellect. I pity you .

I now understand how an enthusiastic amateur can fail to appreciate better performances/recordings, and not really understand the works of a composer from a musician's perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan Carney:
Mundane, adjective, meaning common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.

You say impossibility, yet in your previous post you state they were 'very true'. How do you know this? How can you claim such a fact? She is playing on a Fazioli!!


As it happens, I know all of the 48 (as well as the partitas), and over the years have performed them, in various combinations.

The Bach of AH, is almost like a computer rendition. Accurate, reasonably fluid, but soulless.

Her approach of articulation is very 'samey', her dynamics are too constrained, although, her judgements regarding tempi are often ok.

From your comments regarding the Harpsichord, I can now judge your musical intellect. I pity you .

I now understand how an enthusiastic amateur can fail to appreciate better performances/recordings, and not really understand the works of a composer from a musician's perspective.

One of the hallmarks of a poor writer is to resort to personal attacks. I have no appetite for that.

Hewitt's performances are 'true' to her analysis. I have studied her commentary on the DVD, and have found no breach of logic in her performances.

I have actively studied music for over 40 years, and have substantial formal background in music. That gives me no special powers, but does provide some grounding.

The Hewitt recordings display a remarkable wealth of different articulation, and more dynamic variation than I have heard in other performances.

As for the harpsichord, I simply find it lacking as an instrument, because it has no capacity for variety of articulation and range of dynamics. For that reason, I prefer piano. This is a matter of taste and personal preference. If you think that is a measure of my musical intellect, you need to work on your powers of discrimination. Looking at available recordings, I am not alone in preferring piano.

Judging by the heat and contempt of your response, I'm guessing you are young. Hopefully you will grow out of it :-)

It is not a personal attack.

You made some rather immature/uneducated comments regarding performance practice (which you now seem to be shying from) and harpsichord.

You cannot claim that she is true to many aspects of period performance, yet she uses a Fazioli. A contradiction, non?!

Logic, or not, if the end result is poor, then surely the time taken to research was wasted?

Please, tell me, where did you study? !

The harpsichord is a superb instrument. They DO have the capability of varying articulation, and the DO have the capability of dynamic change.
I am puzzled that you, an 'educated' musician made such a statement.

In Harpsichord playing, articulation is everything. Each note needs a lot more care and attention than required on a piano; a harpsichordist alters the length of certain notes to shape a phrase/motif - this requires a huge amount of detailed practice and the ability to listen very carefully. As far as dynamics are concerned, most Harpsichords can double their registration. This gives in increase in volume, and also a substantial variation in timbre.

I could go into more detail, but it would be wasted. To summarise, the Harpsichord can be more versatile than a modern piano.

Although, it takes more than a 'substantial' education in music to understand and appreciate these differences. To highlight my point, take a listen to the Handel Violin Sonaten by Andrew Manze and Richard Egarr. Report back once you've heard them.

A good book for understanding Harpsichord is :

A Guide to the Harpsichord - Ann Bond.

quote:

Although, it takes more than a 'substantial' education in music to understand and appreciate these differences. To highlight my point, take a listen to the Handel Violin Sonaten by Andrew Manze and Richard Egarr. Report back once you've heard them.

Hi Dan. Interesting debate you're having with Mike, so I hope it won't degenerate into name calling on either side.

I'm chipping in because you mention Richard Egarr. I wonder if you've heard his recording of WTC Book I, and if you have, what you make of it. I listened to it this morning for the third time, and am really struggling to find much to admire. It comes across as a rather self-conscious effort, with lots of small hesitations, and odd tempo changes that (to me) completely destroy any sense of rhythmic drive and musical flow. If Egarr is an artist you generally admire, I'd be interested to hear your comments on his WTC, which may help me to understand what I'm missing.

Or, it may be that we simply have different preferences when it comes to the performance of Bach

quote:

In Harpsichord playing, articulation is everything. Each note needs a lot more care and attention than required on a piano;

OK, I've run out of time this morning and couldn't possibly respond to about 1000 different curious statements that have been said unchecked lately here and among other threads but I will take the time for this one to say, "Oy Yoy yoy!" There was a tie between this and "Good Grief!" and "Hokey Smoke!".

Best Regards,
Doug

Ok, you got me!

It's a completely different game. But, as harpsichord is more sensitive to such things - it's the nature of the beast!!

Richard Egarr... I don't know his WTC. I can, however, empathise with you on such 'hesitations'. Once again (are you listening Mike?) we have a very well researched performance, by a very well known name.

However, the music of Bach is very personal. The little hesitations (rubato) are quite common. However, over the years people have used rubato less and less in Bach. I think it went out of fashion!

So, when we listen to something so different, we can find it strange when we are used to a different style of playing.

I will take a listen to his WTC and let you know what I think. I'm currently listening to his Handel Sonaten with Andrew Manze - they are sublime!!

Whilst I'm here, the WTC of Rosalyn Tureck are very good!

quote:

Originally posted by Dan Carney:
It is not a personal attack.

You cannot claim that she is true to many aspects of period performance, yet she uses a Fazioli. A contradiction, non?!

Please, tell me, where did you study? !

I could go into more detail, but it would be wasted. To summarise, the Harpsichord can be more versatile than a modern piano.

Although, it takes more than a 'substantial' education in music to understand and appreciate these differences.

Many would argue your contention that harpsichord is more versatile than piano is incorrect. But as I clearly stated, it is a matter of taste. As such, I won't discuss it further.

On her DVD Hewitt clearly explains her preference for the Fazioli. That is good enough for me.

I studied at Loyola University, then in New York, with Ray Crisera of Toscanini fame. But I have listened to music in the intervening years, and my tastes have changed.

I appreciate your tutoring, but am not accepting mandates from unknown posters here, so you have not sent me off looking for new recordings.

Which leads to my only question in this dialogue, how old are you?

As a performer, you should appreciate that I am what you need and yearn for. I listen carefully, and buy recordings and concert tickets to satisfy my urges. As a young performer who knows the 48, you have my respect and attention, but you should consider that you need people like me to further your ambitions. I remain unconvinced. From my previous posts, you know that simply knowing the 48 well enough to play gives you my attentions. But your ability to express your reasoning leaves something to be desired. At this juncture, your comments leave me with no desire to hear you play. What do you bring to the 48 that has eluded your pier group, of which Hewitt is a member?

[QUOTE/]

I appreciate your tutoring, but am not accepting mandates from unknown posters here, so you have not sent me off looking for new recordings.

[\QUOTE]

Oh dear, I thought I'd sent you out searching!!

Many would, they'd be mistaken!

Ray Crisera - that's very impressive! I have a large interest in Trumpet repertoire... A close friend of mine studies with Håkan Hardenberger.

I don't think that the fact that I'm an 'unknown poster' should stand in the way of me offering advice. If I wasn't practising for 5 hours each day, I'd certainly post more often!

My age, is 22. I have studied both at Chetham's School of Music, Manchester, and the Royal College of Music, London. I have won numerous awards, and have worked with some of Europe's top musicians. My current teacher was a student of Kovacevich and Perlemuter.

I'm not sure how I need you to further my ambitions... Can you explain?

I am not, by any means, trying to provoke, just merely wanting to you at least accept my point of view about Hewitt.

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:
Should I start a thread called "where to start with Haydn" as well?

Yes please! That would be much appreciated. I had my very fist experience with Haydn yesterday evening ("La messe Sainte-Cécile") and felt this was the sort of musical emotion I needed, regarding classical music. So, yes please

quote:

Originally posted by Dan Carney:
[QUOTE/]

I appreciate your tutoring, but am not accepting mandates from unknown posters here, so you have not sent me off looking for new recordings.

[\QUOTE]

Oh dear, I thought I'd sent you out searching!!

Many would, they'd be mistaken!

Ray Crisera - that's very impressive! I have a large interest in Trumpet repertoire... A close friend of mine studies with Håkan Hardenberger.

I don't think that the fact that I'm an 'unknown poster' should stand in the way of me offering advice. If I wasn't practising for 5 hours each day, I'd certainly post more often!

My age, is 22. I have studied both at Chetham's School of Music, Manchester, and the Royal College of Music, London. I have won numerous awards, and have worked with some of Europe's top musicians. My current teacher was a student of Kovacevich and Perlemuter.

I'm not sure how I need you to further my ambitions... Can you explain?

I am not, by any means, trying to provoke, just merely wanting to you at least accept my point of view about Hewitt.

To take the most important points first, then work my way back to the ones that are merely incidental, I am important to you as a performer because I am a thoughtful and passionate listener who will buy your recordings and attend your performances and buy the sheet music you authorize. When I listen to you play, I will empty my mind of all other thoughts and give you my full attention every time.

Performance requires a performer and an audience. No audience, no performance.

Unless I am mistaken, you are a performer in training. If I am right, go ahead and make others eager to hear you. What would that hurt :-)

On trumpet, I have played since 1963, but gave up thoughts of being a performer in 1977. I studied with the first chair in New Orleans, Norm Smith, had multiple master classes with Gerard Schwartz, who was 1st chair in New York, and finished my studies with Ray Crisera, who had the most perfect articulation and intonation of any wind player I have heard, and brought a dynamic to his playing that made every note a special occasion.

Now I satisfy my musical appetite by being the best listener I can. I am even practicing sight singing and piano every week, to keep my ears in proper calibration.

I am the proverbial avid listener. What performer doesn't want me in the audience?

Your advice is welcome, but not as an edict or a mandate. A paragraph or so detailing your reasoning would be entertaining, and inform the conversation in a way that would keep it going :-)

At 22, I was all black and white as well. That is 100% OK. It's what you have to do to really learn something.

The gray areas only become apparent on reflection. Who's got time for reflection at 22? So little time, and so much to do!

So why the ultra-negative reaction to Hewitt? If I were an up and coming performer, my curiosity about her would know no bounds, given her success.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Well, I think we're all in training, throughout life.

Maybe, when I'm older, I may enjoy Hewitts Bach. Maybe. However, one can only speak as one thinks. At 22, yes I've lots to learn, but I think it's important to know what you like and dislike.

Hewitt is successful, but so is Lang Lang! I say no more on that one!


I tend to have strong opinions regarding 'classical' music, performers, conductors etc.

Let's put it down to experience and accept personal tastes?

Btw, I've just put the Richter WTC on... The b-flat from Book I is sublime. Played in a very simple, yet sensitive way; they all seem to be played in a rather 'yearning' way.