Bach: "For Inquisitive Young Musicians"
Posted by: Florestan on 23 April 2008
Greetings to all,
From the outset, I suppose it is only fair that I should be forthright and lay all my cards on the table so that there is no mistake as to where my allegiances and biases naturally lie. I started playing the piano when I was 4 years old and the first three vinyl LP’s I bought, on my own, were of the piano music of Frederic Chopin. At this age I was already enthralled with the sound of the piano and this has only gotten stronger and pronounced ever since. Next to the piano, my ear is also attracted mainly to the range found in the cello and might extend up to a viola. I should stress though that when I speak of the sound of the piano that I have a very narrow range of sound that I actually like or prefer. I suspect that this goes back to the late 60’s and early 70’s and the very first recorded piano music I heard; luckily, this is somehow the benchmark for me. Even though the piano is a percussive instrument by definition, what I remember foremost was warmth and a round, bell-like tone (the great pianists were actually magicians in that they could fool us with their skill). I also heard a range of emotions that conveyed anything from light (joy) to darkness (sadness). I am very easily turned off by harsh, bright, and percussive sounding pianos and consequently, the recordings that strive for this apparently (since the 80’s)?
So, having said this, I also want to make it clear that my objective here is not to disparage any other instrument or opinion but just to make it clear that I have certain preferences and that these are entirely based on my on experiences and opinions, too. And, I am only presenting this opinion because I believe strongly in the power of music and hope that every person can experience this in some form or other. I do have my opinions but I still would like to be an ambassador for music in general so as to hopefully influence anyone to experience the joys of the great music from the past, no matter what their preference or taste is.
The preamble is over and now on to the heart of the matter. I do not believe that Johann Sebastian Bach himself would have any issues over the use of a modern grand piano in playing his keyboard music because he himself clearly did not write for or specify such restrictions as to a particular instrument that “must” be used. Secondly, with keyboard music, his most common purpose for writing these works was for them to act as an aid to his teaching and his students and to provide musical enrichment to any musician in general.
Within the title of one of his greatest works (Das wohltemperierte Klavier) we already see a generic reference to the Klavier (Clavier). And Klavier is derived from the Latin base “clavis” which refers to “keys.” Bach clearly would have been aware of this and the fact that it was a term that referred to a keyboard – any keyboard, for that matter. We know as well that Bach had at his disposal harpsichords, clavichords, and organs. Bach also played on the early forerunners to our modern day grand pianos that were built by Gottfried Silbermann, for example. Admittedly, the piano at this point was in its infancy but by the turn of the century many problems began to be ironed out and no one looked back from that point on.
My contention here is mainly derived from the preface that J.S. Bach wrote before many of these volumes. For instance, the title page notes written for the Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1, are as follows:
“The Well-Tempered Clavier, or preludes and fugues in every key, including those with the major third and those with the minor third, for the use and benefit of inquisitive young musicians and for the special diversion of those already well-versed in this study; set down and composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, chapel-master and director of chamber music to the Prince of Anhalt-Coethen, in the year 1722.”
Another good example is found at the start to the Inventions and Sinfonias:
“Honest method: by which the amateurs of the keyboard – especially, however, those desirous of learning – are shown a clear way not only (1) to learn to play cleanly in two parts, but also, after further progress (2) to handle three obligate parts correctly and well: and along with this not only to obtain good inventions (ideas) but to develop the same well; above all, however, to achieve a cantabile style in playing and at the same time acquire a strong foretaste of composition.”
The above quotations (translations) are found in the G. Henle Verlag Urtext editions of the applicable scores.
Nowhere will you see any reference as such that could be interpreted that the instrument or medium used is a priority or in fact, more important than the music itself. In fact, its main goal seems to point solely to the ideal of education and edification. More specifically, its underlying aim is for developing independence of the 10 fingers (as opposed to playing with the view of a left hand and a right hand). No other creation can match this goal on the level as found in these works. And to illustrate the importance (and difficulty too!) of the WTC you can note that most every notable pianist who excelled in the 19th century studied and cherished this “old testament” as written by Bach. This includes Haydn and Mozart too! And definitely on the piano we see Beethoven played them by the age of 13 and Chopin had them committed to memory from a young age and studied them again thoroughly leading up to the writing of his 24 preludes. Others who took them seriously included Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms. And we can also mention the likes of Busoni, Rachmaninov, Siloti, Shostakovich etc. just for starters.
I should clarify at this point that I do understand that a harpsichord, a clavichord, an organ, and a modern piano all have different characteristics and pros and cons. But still, I truly don’t believe Bach wrote only for a specific instrument. After all, didn’t he even use different themes and motifs from here, there, and everywhere that crossed many lines for different genres? He was a transcriber of sorts too and it didn’t seem to bother him. One example I am aware of is that he transcribed the a- Sonata for solo violin (BWV 1003) to the clavier (BWV 964). There are many more examples as well. What I personally do not care for is when someone tries to play an instrument such as a modern grand piano and tries to make it sound like a harpsichord, for instance. Instead, why not capitalize on what each instrument does best naturally. Admittedly, some music might be better suited to a harpsichord and some benefits more so from the sonorities found in a piano. But none-the-less, in the end the music is great enough that it will transcend something as minor as to what instrument is used. And why should I as a pianist forego this experience simply because I don’t own a harpsichord, clavichord, or pipe organ?
In the simplest terms, music is no more than basic harmony / counterpoint, rhythm and melody. To the mix you add your choice of tempo, dynamics, the timber of the instrument chosen etc. and you have something meaningful for every individual. These are the ingredients that draw us to the music and leave us speechless. And I can experience this same joy whether I hear it on a recorder, guitar, accordion, or belt out a riff in the shower to myself (where no one can hear, I hope!).
Lastly, I want to talk about what Bach meant by his reference to “cantabile style” playing in his quote “above all, however, to achieve a cantabile style in playing and at the same time acquire a strong foretaste of composition.” I’m actually confused by this instruction. Cantabile is the Italian musical term that directs the player to play in a singing style. In other words, not choppy or disconnected but sonorous and maybe even legato with a special attention paid to the melodic line. Maybe the harpsichord experts out there can correct me but a harpsichord does not strike me as an instrument that is really capable of “cantabile”? After all, the strings are essentially plucked by a quill, are they not? I would guess that its surely easier to play even (because through the nature of the instrument the player doesn’t even have to worry about this?). I will go as far to say that even a Clavichord is more capable of this Cantabile feature since you can vary your attack on the key (which propelled a brass tangent against a string) giving you some room to change the quality of the sound produced. (I believe that it was Johann Nikolaus Forkel who said that Bach actually preferred the Clavichord to the Harpsichord). The modern grand has improved upon this control (using a felt hammer and better actions) still further and offers the opportunity to produce more volume, as well, if needed (in an ensemble etc.) The infinite range and opportunity to express ones self, in my opinion, lends itself more readily as to what I consider “cantabile” qualities.
I would be very interested in what others feel about this topic. Would Bach have welcomed (and preferred) playing on a Hamburg Steinway to what technology / industry was capable of giving him in the early 18th century? Was his devotion to counterpoint the driving force for him or was it solely linked to an instrument? Whatever the case may be I hope to learn something from everyone’s point of view here but in the end I believe that we can all coexist in the world together. After all, everyone is still part of this forum for the same reasons, ultimately, and that is for the common link that we all love music.
Best regards,
Doug
From the outset, I suppose it is only fair that I should be forthright and lay all my cards on the table so that there is no mistake as to where my allegiances and biases naturally lie. I started playing the piano when I was 4 years old and the first three vinyl LP’s I bought, on my own, were of the piano music of Frederic Chopin. At this age I was already enthralled with the sound of the piano and this has only gotten stronger and pronounced ever since. Next to the piano, my ear is also attracted mainly to the range found in the cello and might extend up to a viola. I should stress though that when I speak of the sound of the piano that I have a very narrow range of sound that I actually like or prefer. I suspect that this goes back to the late 60’s and early 70’s and the very first recorded piano music I heard; luckily, this is somehow the benchmark for me. Even though the piano is a percussive instrument by definition, what I remember foremost was warmth and a round, bell-like tone (the great pianists were actually magicians in that they could fool us with their skill). I also heard a range of emotions that conveyed anything from light (joy) to darkness (sadness). I am very easily turned off by harsh, bright, and percussive sounding pianos and consequently, the recordings that strive for this apparently (since the 80’s)?
So, having said this, I also want to make it clear that my objective here is not to disparage any other instrument or opinion but just to make it clear that I have certain preferences and that these are entirely based on my on experiences and opinions, too. And, I am only presenting this opinion because I believe strongly in the power of music and hope that every person can experience this in some form or other. I do have my opinions but I still would like to be an ambassador for music in general so as to hopefully influence anyone to experience the joys of the great music from the past, no matter what their preference or taste is.
The preamble is over and now on to the heart of the matter. I do not believe that Johann Sebastian Bach himself would have any issues over the use of a modern grand piano in playing his keyboard music because he himself clearly did not write for or specify such restrictions as to a particular instrument that “must” be used. Secondly, with keyboard music, his most common purpose for writing these works was for them to act as an aid to his teaching and his students and to provide musical enrichment to any musician in general.
Within the title of one of his greatest works (Das wohltemperierte Klavier) we already see a generic reference to the Klavier (Clavier). And Klavier is derived from the Latin base “clavis” which refers to “keys.” Bach clearly would have been aware of this and the fact that it was a term that referred to a keyboard – any keyboard, for that matter. We know as well that Bach had at his disposal harpsichords, clavichords, and organs. Bach also played on the early forerunners to our modern day grand pianos that were built by Gottfried Silbermann, for example. Admittedly, the piano at this point was in its infancy but by the turn of the century many problems began to be ironed out and no one looked back from that point on.
My contention here is mainly derived from the preface that J.S. Bach wrote before many of these volumes. For instance, the title page notes written for the Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1, are as follows:
“The Well-Tempered Clavier, or preludes and fugues in every key, including those with the major third and those with the minor third, for the use and benefit of inquisitive young musicians and for the special diversion of those already well-versed in this study; set down and composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, chapel-master and director of chamber music to the Prince of Anhalt-Coethen, in the year 1722.”
Another good example is found at the start to the Inventions and Sinfonias:
“Honest method: by which the amateurs of the keyboard – especially, however, those desirous of learning – are shown a clear way not only (1) to learn to play cleanly in two parts, but also, after further progress (2) to handle three obligate parts correctly and well: and along with this not only to obtain good inventions (ideas) but to develop the same well; above all, however, to achieve a cantabile style in playing and at the same time acquire a strong foretaste of composition.”
The above quotations (translations) are found in the G. Henle Verlag Urtext editions of the applicable scores.
Nowhere will you see any reference as such that could be interpreted that the instrument or medium used is a priority or in fact, more important than the music itself. In fact, its main goal seems to point solely to the ideal of education and edification. More specifically, its underlying aim is for developing independence of the 10 fingers (as opposed to playing with the view of a left hand and a right hand). No other creation can match this goal on the level as found in these works. And to illustrate the importance (and difficulty too!) of the WTC you can note that most every notable pianist who excelled in the 19th century studied and cherished this “old testament” as written by Bach. This includes Haydn and Mozart too! And definitely on the piano we see Beethoven played them by the age of 13 and Chopin had them committed to memory from a young age and studied them again thoroughly leading up to the writing of his 24 preludes. Others who took them seriously included Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms. And we can also mention the likes of Busoni, Rachmaninov, Siloti, Shostakovich etc. just for starters.
I should clarify at this point that I do understand that a harpsichord, a clavichord, an organ, and a modern piano all have different characteristics and pros and cons. But still, I truly don’t believe Bach wrote only for a specific instrument. After all, didn’t he even use different themes and motifs from here, there, and everywhere that crossed many lines for different genres? He was a transcriber of sorts too and it didn’t seem to bother him. One example I am aware of is that he transcribed the a- Sonata for solo violin (BWV 1003) to the clavier (BWV 964). There are many more examples as well. What I personally do not care for is when someone tries to play an instrument such as a modern grand piano and tries to make it sound like a harpsichord, for instance. Instead, why not capitalize on what each instrument does best naturally. Admittedly, some music might be better suited to a harpsichord and some benefits more so from the sonorities found in a piano. But none-the-less, in the end the music is great enough that it will transcend something as minor as to what instrument is used. And why should I as a pianist forego this experience simply because I don’t own a harpsichord, clavichord, or pipe organ?
In the simplest terms, music is no more than basic harmony / counterpoint, rhythm and melody. To the mix you add your choice of tempo, dynamics, the timber of the instrument chosen etc. and you have something meaningful for every individual. These are the ingredients that draw us to the music and leave us speechless. And I can experience this same joy whether I hear it on a recorder, guitar, accordion, or belt out a riff in the shower to myself (where no one can hear, I hope!).
Lastly, I want to talk about what Bach meant by his reference to “cantabile style” playing in his quote “above all, however, to achieve a cantabile style in playing and at the same time acquire a strong foretaste of composition.” I’m actually confused by this instruction. Cantabile is the Italian musical term that directs the player to play in a singing style. In other words, not choppy or disconnected but sonorous and maybe even legato with a special attention paid to the melodic line. Maybe the harpsichord experts out there can correct me but a harpsichord does not strike me as an instrument that is really capable of “cantabile”? After all, the strings are essentially plucked by a quill, are they not? I would guess that its surely easier to play even (because through the nature of the instrument the player doesn’t even have to worry about this?). I will go as far to say that even a Clavichord is more capable of this Cantabile feature since you can vary your attack on the key (which propelled a brass tangent against a string) giving you some room to change the quality of the sound produced. (I believe that it was Johann Nikolaus Forkel who said that Bach actually preferred the Clavichord to the Harpsichord). The modern grand has improved upon this control (using a felt hammer and better actions) still further and offers the opportunity to produce more volume, as well, if needed (in an ensemble etc.) The infinite range and opportunity to express ones self, in my opinion, lends itself more readily as to what I consider “cantabile” qualities.
I would be very interested in what others feel about this topic. Would Bach have welcomed (and preferred) playing on a Hamburg Steinway to what technology / industry was capable of giving him in the early 18th century? Was his devotion to counterpoint the driving force for him or was it solely linked to an instrument? Whatever the case may be I hope to learn something from everyone’s point of view here but in the end I believe that we can all coexist in the world together. After all, everyone is still part of this forum for the same reasons, ultimately, and that is for the common link that we all love music.
Best regards,
Doug