The Well Tempered Klavier

I've never had any difficulty following individual voices in the part-writing in harpsichord performances, but performing on a piano doesn't mean one has to exaggerate entries and singing lines. Ultimately I find the quality of the performer to be of greater importance than the choice of instrument... excluding some truly vile-sounding harpsichords! Main grumble with many harpsichord recordings - including, sadly, Pinnock's of the Partitas and the Violin Sonatas with Podger - is that the engineers seem to feel the need to make the instrument sound HUGE!!

Hey, George, while we're talking about this, can you recommend me a decent performance of Die Kunst der Fuge on Harpsichord? And an organ recording? I'm blown away by Aimard's recent recording for DG, but want some alternatives. String quartet recordings sound oddly somnolent, I prefer it at the keyboard I have to say.

Ta,

Alex

I have the set with Davitt Morony, but have found I prefer this music on the organ rather than the harpsichord. [I will send you an email tomorrow about the fate of this].

I have heard recordings Rubsam [on Philips but currently deleted sadly] and Walcha [DGG Archive] play it on the organ, and both make sense of it. {Have found the cheapest current DGG Archive issue of the Walcha, details in email to follow].

I agree that the musical quality of the person playing the instrument is more important than the instrument.

I would have Edwin Fischer playing the piano in the 48 in front of many harpsichord performances, especially those on the vile and clangourous early 20th Century type of modern harpsichord typified by the instruments played by Landowska or Karl Richter - such as the Playel.

But if I had to choose between my favourite piano performances [of the 48] and my favourites on the harpsichord, - for me - the harpsichord ones win.

ATB from George

To be a bit more specific, the melodies in the WTC often have a vocal quality. This is not far-fetched or suprising, as Bach was a big fan of Italian opera.

A piano has the means to inflect a phrase in a manner not unlike the human voice, in the hands of an accomplished performer. That is not possible on a harpsichord.

Hewitt is placing her mark upon my soul.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Hewitt is placing her mark upon my soul.

She's special, I'm gearing up for a bit of a spree! I still think Perahia is the Bach pianist of the moment, but Angela is great too and rather nicer to look at! (PLus no WTC from Perahia!)

Thanks George, I'll keep an eye on my email.

Alex

I'm gearing up to having Walcha mark my soul. I like what I've heard. If only his piano didn't have asthma :-)

Well just to offer further temptation I can recommend this 'fix' for Hewitt junkies



Bit difficult to read so...Bach's Keyboard Concertos No 1 D minor, No 7 G minor, Brandenburg No 5 D major and his Triple Concerto in A minor.

It is an excellent recording to boot and Hewitt really sparkles. It has real drive, and its volume 1 so there is a volume 2 to spend more money on

regards
Geoff

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:
Well just to offer further temptation I can recommend this 'fix' for Hewitt junkies

These are super albums. Totally agree with you on this Geoff.

quote:

Originally posted by Lontano:

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:
Well just to offer further temptation I can recommend this 'fix' for Hewitt junkies

These are super albums. Totally agree with you on this Geoff.

...ah I was afraid of that. I guess I have to buy vol 2 then.

Geoff

The power of music to be transformational lay in it's ability to unfold emotion over time.
You are presented with a succession of feelings, each requiring a response, and moving inexorably
towards a conclusion.

Two great clockworks endow music with the motive power this requires.

These clockworks can be represented by two questions :

1 - What happened?

2 - What happened to me?

Question 1 relies on reality. What happened to whom, when? It is not enhanced by the reactions of the victims or the perpetrators. "Just the facts, mam - Just the facts."

Question 2 is all about how those nameless participants experienced Question 1. "What happened to you?"

To make a rough analogy, in Bach's WTC, the harmonic structure answers to Question 1. It sets the tone.
Harmony is all about how multiple tones played together feel. They make you emote.

Question 2 is answered by the voices, or the melodies, they put the human face to the feeling. They make the story. Voices, or melodies, are what is expressed when the notes come one after the other, and not at the same time.

Taken together, they provide a story which evokes feelings.

There's always a story.

Bach lays these bare. With Bach, there are no spare notes. Remove any note, and you do damage to the story, the feelings, or both.

Hewitt has a mastery of question 1, and a electrifying ability to put the "me" in question 2. That is why she is so exciting.

Dear Mike,

Not that we listen in a very similar way - as it becomes clearer with time - and therefore it would be surprising if we put the same weight on different aspects in music, but for me the real emotional weight in music stems from the basic harmonic pulse of music [which is always long term and often very long breathed over time] in music. Music that avoids the implication of harmonic mudulation has very little interest for me, and it is a mark of modern popular music that theire is almost never any modulation and thus once one has heard the first four or eight bars all that is left is uninspired repetition - at least that is the tedious effect it has on me, given my way of listening into the harmonic stress in the music. In fugue the stress and release comes from the potentialities of counterpoint rather more than harmonic developement, it has to be said, but the inevitable developement of thematic material in great fugue style composition is quite extra-ordinary even so. Otherwise we could never enjoy the hour and half of fugues in D minor in the Art Of Fugue!

The melodic aspect is like the sugar to make the medicine more pleasant - only window dressing in relative terms for me!

But it is also parallel to this way of listening that I listen [for the deep underlying structure] with next to no regard for the surface presentation, which I prefer as austere and simple as can be, and thus I will always gravitate toward the less fanciful hapsichord [if is the suitable instrument in the music as it is with Bach but never Beethoven or Debussy], because the harpsichord allows almost no elaboration to be added to the surface of the music, and its very clarity allows for closest comnnection to the very deepest buried aspects of the music, those least obvious in a rendition of harpsichord-music on the piano, however beautiful the pianist can make the surface of the music seem, even if in casting it for the harpsichord I doubt if the surface beauty of it was Bach's main priority.

I suspect that Bach's musical depth stem of his great spirituality, and faith, and that he did not feel the need to make music that was consistently sweet on the surface.

Technically his music is typically [on the surfece level at least] played correctly in a default mode of detache [articulated] style, where the legato touch is actually a special effect to be applied judiciously and rarely.

Bach's one son described his father's playing as being of style that could be called lyrical detache - detache implies stacatto, but less obviously so than generally produced by the highly damped piano.

The great thing about the harpsichord is it allows the articualtion to be precise, exceedingly clear and clean, but without abruptness at the end of notes, where a relatively less damped action stops the note less quickly than the massive felt dampers of a concert grand piano nowadays, amd also is posessed of a sort of case resonance that allows for a singing line in spite of the naturally non-legato approach in stylish playing and inherent clarity of the instrument.

Please forgive these thoughts presented without expectatrion of being agreed with ...

ATB from George

For me, melody is the root of all music. Every harmonic implication finds it's root cause in the thematic material. A change of key finds its reason for being in it's ability to move the thematic material forward, onto a new plane.

The rhythm in the WTC comes of the melodic lines. The rhythm becomes because of melody.

Without rhythm, there can be no music.

So my most important consideration in performance is the performer's ability to maintain the independence of line.

When this is achieved, the harmony unfolds like the wake of a boat. The interaction of the lines brings the harmony into being in its wake.

This came to be for the simplest and most fundamental of reasons. Music begins and ends with the human voice. This is no where more true than in Bach, an avid lover of Italian opera. In the articulation, each utterance finds a voice. All the expression resides in the articulation. The more control the performer has over the articulation, the greater is that performer's powers of expression. Refinement of articulation magnifies the emotive power of music.

So, George, you are right, we couldn't listen more differently. Anyone wishing to grow their music collection only need invite us both, and there would be twice as much music in the room :-)

I begin to understand your lack of affection for 20th century music George. To love Stravinsky, one must first become a lover of melody. The most basic building blocks for Stravinsky are thematic. Some might say the same for Beethoven. And I feel this melodic approach breathes new life into Bach.

This is how I hear Hewitt.

quote:

Without rhythm, there can be no music.

This I agree with entirely.

The two elements that define music from mere noise are, organised rhythm, and organised pitch. Yes that is a brutally simply starting point, and even then something musical can emerge with pure rhythm as in African drumming, so even then pitch may be thought of as the lesser partner in some circumstances.

On the other hand I think the rhythm of the WTC comes from the thematic material rather than that material being especially melodic.

Even the First Prelude in C [book one] is actually a pure harmonic progression based in a repeating and rather simple rhythm.

There is no melody at all as such and Gounod would go on to show what a gift Bach had made in conceiving that glorious harmonic progression, by composing the Ave Maria over Bach's composition [though with one bar missing because Gounod used Czerny's edition of it, where the later and lesser composer thought he could improve on the harmony by cutting out one certain bar!].

ATB from George

Thematic material is always melodic.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
There is no melody at all as such and Gounod would go on to show what a gift Bach had made in conceiving that glorious harmonic progression, by composing the Ave Maria over Bach's composition [though with one bar missing because Gounod used Czerny's edition of it, where the later and lesser composer thought he could improve on the harmony by cutting out one certain bar!].

Dear George

I do not know Gounod´s Ave Maria in detail, but which bar is missing in his arrangement?

I suspect you refer to the so called "Schwencke measure" , which a keyboard player named Christian Friedrich Schwencke (1767 - 1822) added to Bachs´s C-major prelude between bar 22 and 23 in order to lessen the harmonic tension between these two bars. This addition was adapted by many editors of the score in the years to come.

So Bachs original is the version without this later added measure.

Link to ref.:
http://books.google.dk/books?i...v=onepage&q=&f=false

ATB,

Dear Poul,

It is the way round as you say!

Slipping in my old age! The funniest thing was to hear this trick played on someone singing the Gounod. Not kind on the singer but very funny for the rest of us! It was only a rehearsal, so that is how I found out about it!

ATB from George

Now this is a very interesting discussion and thank you both George and Mike for this little bit. It has given me something to think about and hopefully I can learn something new as well as offer something here as well. Music along with art is always easier to experience than to explain so please bare with me. This music is very important to me as well but I'm afraid I'm not following some of the points here. Perhaps I missed it George but could you please define what you mean by thematic material? As Mike stated, isn't thematic material also melodic?

quote:

On the other hand I think the rhythm of the WTC comes from the thematic material rather than that material being especially melodic.

Even the First Prelude in C [book one] is actually a pure harmonic progression based in a repeating and rather simple rhythm.

quote:

The melodic aspect is like the sugar to make the medicine more pleasant - only window dressing in relative terms for me!
.....
I suspect that Bach's musical depth stem of his great spirituality, and faith, and that he did not feel the need to make music that was consistently sweet on the surface.

In all humbleness, I do have to disagree with these statements. Possibly, I do not understand the points fully to appreciate the gist but my feeling is one cannot divorce or yank out melody so arbitrarily or even pretend it does not exist. Besides, what did melody ever do to you that you're so hard on it Let me start with a direct quote:

quote:

"It is melody which is the charm of music, and it is that which is most difficult to produce. The invention of a fine melody is a work of genius." - Joseph Haydn

First off, I happen to play the Prelude in C quite regularly and I was quite surprised to read that this piece (or any of the WTC maybe) is not melodic? Music is the "voice" of our soul and anything with a voice to me extends towards melody. I don't know if you have access to a keyboard but it might be revelatory for you to try this. In the first prelude, you generally have a repeated pattern which repeats twice per bar. If you can play that pattern as a chord only once per bar (and maybe bring out the lowest and highest note). Then sing / hum along (or choose any inner voice). Change the rhythm, change the voicing, play it slowly or fast, whatever....just sing along. It is beauty in its simplest form. I suggest doing this on an instrument because this is the only way to connect your body and soul to the sound. You will experience the melody. I really hope you are able to experience this as I receive immense pleasure from something as simple as this.

Now I started off defending melody but I need to be clear that a complete understanding of music has several fundamental qualities that need to be present and understood. I don't believe one is more important than the other. Remove one of them and the magic starts to disappear. The reason Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, and the likes, are treasures for all time is that they understood all the elements. These individual pieces are: Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, Tempo, Dynamics. Of course, it is more complex than this but just to keep it simple let's start with these. I'm just going to brainstorm some typical aspects:

Melody: The musical line. What you generally hum or sing. Out of lines come patterns. Out of patterns we can develop phrasing. A phrase gives a small musical meaning to a little group within the context of a larger whole. Within these lines are steps between the notes (ie. intervals). A melody has a start, middle, and end. The last two points suggest that melody moves up / down and also forward.

Harmony: The musical space. If melody has one dimension, namely height / direction, harmony really adds the depth. Harmony is connected to the relationship between the intervals / chords. Harmony depends on the progression of intervals / chords (what was before it and what is coming). Dissonance and consonance is what makes the music interesting. Sometimes "ugly" sounds are needed because this creates tension. When it is resolved then we feel satisfied (ie. Dominant to Tonic cadence).

Rhythm: The musical time. How a composer essentially organizes the beats/pulses/duration of tone etc. Rhythm shapes the melody and harmony. With rhythm you can (or should) feel the meter or metrical pattern. Syncopation can add something unexpected and interesting to a typical meter.

Tempo: The musical pace. Tempo really clarifies the rhythm. You may have a rhythmic pattern but how fast or how slow do you play the beats. What makes sense in the context of what you are trying to say? Usually human emotions align perfectly with what you are trying to express. When we speak, for instance, we might speak fast and erratically when we are agitated. We might speak generally slowly and softly if something sad has happened etc. A composer/musician has to express or create the same effect through sound

Dynamics: The musical volume. The degree of loudness and softness that we express the music with. In the same way that tempo is guided by the emotion we are trying to emote so does dynamics. A lullaby or love song requires different dynamics than a march.


In conclusion, I would have to ask what piece written by Bach does not include ALL of these elements listed above? I've studied and played many of the WTC, 2/3 Part Inventions, Partitas etc. and I couldn't imagine any of these elements missing (least of all melody). We may not agree on this but I neither can believe the Bach would have considered "melody" as something insignificant or a cheap "sugar" coating. At the same time I would stress again that melody is just one little part in the big picture.

Best Regards,
Doug

Florestan, I hesitate to even agree, you put it so well and so completely.

Dear Doug,

I am not suggesting that the First Prelude is not music, but I am suggesting there is music with a sweeter surface resonance! Melody being largely a surface phenomenon in music, whilst the harmonony is buried, and more elusive.

What is certain is that if one plays the bars of the arpeggios of more or less any Bach Prelude, and the First of the Forty-eight serves very nicely [I have done this in my piano playing days] then the treble line of the harmonic progression makes a melody of sorts, but not a really obviously humming melody such as Gounod presents us with in the Ave Maria based on the First Prelude in the sense that it uses its harmonic progression as a complete framework [pace the extra bar!].

The great melodists were not also generally the great contrapuntalists, or symphonists.

Haydn is an example of a composer who wrote the most memorable melodies, but also frequently could turn out a most satisfying sonata form movement that actually does not have one single tune that is obviously hummable. He was the paradox in this, both a man capable of writing the most moving and memorable melodies and also capable of writing counterpoint that is certainly not eclipsed by that of Bach.

Bach - just like Haydn - did not tend to be profigate with melody.

Bach wrote very long ones that actually get so long often by developing the inital ideas in the process of their length!

Haydn often made use of very short germs of inspiration that he welds with such wisdom and energy that it is the sheer drive of the music that catches you rather a tune you might walk down the street whistling!

Mozart, Schubert, Grieg, or Dvorak however give us so many memorable melodies in a single symphonic or concertante movement that one is simply amazed at their tuneful inventiveness.

If you want to see where I am driving with the difference between harmonically powered music and that made so wonderful by melody, then think of the First Movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony which though it has memorable germs of inspiration hardly has a good tune in all its eight minutes, and then think of more or less any Schubert song.

Bach, like Haydn, could turn out a melody as fine as anything by Schubert, but often relied, like Haydn on harmonic significance [of tension and release] rather than the sheer beauty and memorability of of the melodic invention.

I do not suggest that the First Prelude [of the 48] does not have a tune, but rather that the tune as it exists is the product of a harmonic invention first and foremost - a gift simply waiting for a tune such as Gounod would realise to fit over the harmonic implication that Bach lays down for us.

It is probably not a very useful differentiation, and the point about being able to hum the top line of the harmony [of the First Prelude] is fair, but it seems clear to me that the top line here grew from a harmonic inspiration in a way for example that the harmonies of Schubert's song "The Trout," clearly grew fromn a need to support a wonderful, charming, and fully formed [whistle-able, or hum-able - certainly singable] melody. A melody which actually stands quite well in the complete absense of the supporting harmonic framework. The top line of the First Prelude makes no sense at all without the rest of the harmony, IMO.

ATB from George

George, I find the WTC and all of Beethoven's Symphonies tuneful, and full of beautiful melody. The melodies of Beethoven's 5th are quite famous.

That doesn't mean they are hummable, or even singable, but many are both.

You may have talked yourself into a chicken and egg scenario.

Dear Mike,

I have alrady said that I am not sure that this differentiation is all that uiseful, but to my mind - useful or not - it does exist! I suppose it depends what is defined as a good tune, rather than memorable thematic material [which what it is often refered to as].

There is certainly a big difference betweeen the thematic material of the first movement of Beethovens Fifth and say the thematic material for the Sheppards' Thanksgiving in the Pastoral in terms of whistle-ability, hum-ability, or even potential to be turned into a song!

But it is probably not a very important point!

I am able to agree with that.

ATB from George

I would say breaking music down into component parts is not very useful or interesting. If music consists of harmony, melody, rhythm,.. ect, ect, then where does Stockhausen fit in ? Or Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music ?, which has no melody of harmony, in any conventional sense.

I think George makes a good point, Bach's music is less about melody than many other things. There are more great tunes in 'Peer Gynt' (for example) than in all the the Bach 48.


Noyes

I have been following the debate as to whether the WTC is first and foremost melody or harmony, and the wider discussion of the emotional tags that music employs to involve us.

Nobody mentioned it but the will to really listen is an element that seems to me significantly more important in classical music than any other genre except to a lesser extent Jazz.

At its lowest level music or really better named 'muzak' assaults us on a daily basis once we leave the confines of our own little home music 'bubble'. We have learnt to tune that out but at the same time are just as likely to 'tune out' at moments when we are relaxed and start to drift in the comfort of our own armchair.

This, certainly for me, is easily done with what I call popular or comfort music. Music that can be 'dropped' briefly from proper attention and recovered without significant loss when the next chorus comes around and it repeats all over again. Don't get me wrong there is a lot of quality popular music and in particular the major composers created some marvellous melodies but their very familiarity, and more importantly relatively simple structure, breeds this effect in me.

What Bach does to me is capture me with a 'phrase' ( be it harmony or melody ) and as he adds voices I am enthralled because there is always a previously missed neuance to hear. No 'drfiting' with Bach. Effectively Bach in particular, and other key classical composers, present an ever 'fresh' musical experience each time I listen which I can't say for popular music except very rarely.

I enjoy the discussion and the 'education' as a non musician, but don't honestly analyse classical music that deeply, I just know it is affecting to me.

regards
Geoff

We just finished listening to the Hewitt WTC,
Book 1 Disc 2 Tracks 1 thru 12.

Everything about her is beautiful. That makes it easy to forget the basic nature of the work.

Bach traverses all of the major and minor keys twice. Once in Book 1, then again in Book 2, 22 years later.

Hewitt's Fazioli, all 10'8" of it, are maintained in an absolutely pristine tuning and voicing all the way through all 4 disks. It is a razor sharp equal temperament tuning.

Consequently, the major keys should not vary from each other in color. By color I mean the feeling of that moment.

But somehow they do.

What struck me tonight was how the themes radiated the feeling of each major key, and made each unique in its message. In other words, the melody established the character of the key.

At any rate, that's how it struck me tonight.
I rate it a good night. A closer look at the Hewitt WTC ...

Just to avoid any confusion; if it's a theme, it's a melody. You can count on that.

George,
I’ve been thinking about your points above and I think I generally understand where you are coming from. The parts I find I do not agree with (yet) are the points I find to be leaning a little to far to the extreme side. Where I agree with you 100% is how you do stress the importance of the harmony. Furthermore, I couldn’t agree more that Bach was simply a master of harmony. He understood it better than anyone and used it to his advantage. The past couple of days I’ve been thinking about the relationship between harmony, melody, and rhythm, and it is clear to me that Bach’s forte was the harmony and rhythm. Tempo and dynamics are largely the stylistic or interpretive aspect. There is no denying this but knowing this does not negate the fact that all tonal music uses some degree of harmony, melody, rhythm, tempo, and dynamics and distills these elements together into music. How much of each depends on the composer and the time period he lived in. So while I may agree with you now that the harmony (and I’ll add the rhythm to this) is the dominant aspect within the compositions of Bach, I still find the melody there in spades, in every piece. After all, a fugue with 2, 3, 4, or 5 parts (or voices) is certainly referring to the melody only, is it not? The counterpoint (harmony) is understood. BTW, Geoff, harmony and melody are two distinct features yet they work together to demonstrate the richness and depth in the music.

Where I don’t agree with you is in the assigning of value to anything else in comparison. Schubert was genuinely Schubert and this is why he is so special. If he tried to copy Bach then he would be no more than someone who copied someone else (kind of like the Asian car makers).

If one says they do not care for the music of “x” or “y,” I can respect this. It is harder for me to accept an argument though, that is based on the erroneous presumption that “x” and “y” have no value or are of lesser importance because they might be more melodic or dramatic etc. As I stated earlier, I can show you each of those five elements in tonal music for every composer following Bach and including Bach. The harmony, melody, & rhythm found in Beethoven, Schumann, Debussy or Prokofiev, for instance, is every bit as meaningful to me as the music Bach wrote. They are simply just stylistically different and from different periods of time. Don’t forget that Bach was the sum of the past in his day and much of his music was forward looking (ie. chromaticism to name one). In Bach’s time much of what he wrote too was forward looking and scandalous to some. Also, don’t forget that every great composer after Bach studied the WTC and revered it like the Bible (Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms to name a few). The music that these later composers created had to have some part of Bach within there psyche. In the end, it's all glorious music for us but just represented by different spokesmen in different times.

If you look at western music before Bach (say Gregorian chant) you realize that the constraints of the time forced these writers to adhere to certain beliefs etc. Namely, it was a mortal sin really to sing a chant all over the expansive scale. The restriction was to move very little up or down and no big jumps in intervals etc. because this wasn’t considered Godly. I love Gregorian Chant and can respect it for what it is. Knowing the historic elements in it make it more meaningful to me. I extend that same respect to say Rachmaninov or Prokofiev at the other end of the scale. Vastly different, I know, but the truth is both ends of this spectrum can bring joy to me and also bring a tear to my eye. Music of any style or period can have this effect because music is really made for our human emotion and enjoyment.

Geoff, I do agree with you that one doesn’t necessary need to know all the technical or theoretical stuff to enjoy music. I know that the vast majority of time that I listen to music it is simply for pleasure and none of this theory stuff comes into play (at least that one is cognitively aware of). I think all those who are attracted to music already intuitively understand these elements but there just isn’t a need to ascribe an academic explanation to it. But I find this changes when I listen for the purpose of trying to learn a piece of music to play. Here, as with everything in life, the greater ones knowledge of the subject, the greater ones eventual journey and experience.

Best regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
The past couple of days I’ve been thinking about the relationship between harmony, melody, and rhythm, and it is clear to me that Bach’s forte was the harmony and rhythm.

From Wikipedia :

"A melody (from Greek μελῳδία - melōidía, "singing, chanting"[1]), also tune, voice, or line, is a linear succession of musical tones which is perceived as a single entity."

In the WTC, the rhythm is completely determined by the voicing (i.e. melody).