The Well Tempered Klavier

Doug

Thank you for the potted history of the WTC I found that interesting as is your analysis of the D Minor viewed as a layman.

Mike you say:

quote:

Even in retrograde and inversion, the interpretation usually does not change, barring the odd inspiration.

In practice, the first thing to secure is to ensure that when a theme appears, it is always presented with the same character.

That probably varies from instrument to instrument, but it is a good philosophy if you are a trumpet player.

I have heard it done well, and it never fails to inspire.

And that is at the root of every one of my musical bias.

...I think it will be interesting as time permits to compare Hewitt on piano more fully with Walcha on harpsichord as you will defenitely find the interpretation is significantly different.

I conclude this is to quite an extent the instrument determining the interpretation but that is not the complete story as the two artists clearly have individual feelings of how to play the music.

Nigel

Us layman need to stick together. Please, like me feel free to throw a few thoughts in if the mood takes you and see if they stir the waters. At 2.99 that is a remarkable deal though I am not sure if I can cope with another version yet. Will file it for future reference...but please continue to comment as you work your way through it.

regards
geoff

George, Geoff, Nigel, this is my first serious attempt to become a lover of Bach. I have listened to Bach on occasion for years and always enjoyed it, but never before given him my undivided attention.

Its been decades since I have made a serious attempt on a major new composer. I am stumbling through it.

Being lazy, I thought I would read up on the WTC first, to have an idea of what to look for, then listen, then introduce myself to the sheet music. I think from here on out I will read the music first, then listen, and finish up by reading. That way a typo or edit error in a book won't make me look like a jackass on the forum :-)

I read the D Minor Fugue had four voices, and only heard three, and questioned my ears instead of the source. Rookie blunder.

It's still the most fun I've had in years. Here's to experiencing music (of Bach) in a whole new way!

George, I see your point on Bach's harmony, even with my wooden head :-)

Nigel, please hang out here with us until we're finished with Bach, OK? But don't be silent ...

Hi Mike, thanks for the encouragement. Bach was my point of entry into the world of classical music - it's all that late 19th Century romantic frou-frou I have a problem with I love Bach's music - especially the solo keyboard and violin works - "beyond all reason", as it were. If, God forbid, I had to spend the rest of my life listening to just one artist or composer, I would not hesitate for a second to choose Bach. The passion's there, but I just don't have the musical vocabulary to analyse the WTC as the main contributors to this thread have done - but I have really enjoyed following it.

Egarr's WTC is growing on me after two spins of CD1. I'll dig out my other harpsichord version (by Bob van Asperen) and compare the two later.

Regards
Nigel

Droodzilla, my progression through the classics over the past forty years has been, in this order, Mahler, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Beethoven, Brahms, Hindemith and now Bach. I have listened to many others, but these are the ones I chose to study in some detail.

If you wonder why I started with Mahler, I heard his Fifth Symphony as a young trumpet player, and that was it!

In retrospect, this is a warped progression :-)

I feel this assault on Bach is growing me a new set of ears. Everything else will have to be revisited and reconsidered.

We just gave a good focused listen to three different versions of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, Book 1 , D Minor Prelude and Fugue : The Hewitt, the Walcha and the Gilbert.

I put these into two groups, Walcha/Gilbert and Hewitt.

This is a great Prelude and Fugue to compare them, as Hewitt uses rubato sparingly here.

The Hewitt is absolutely beautiful as always, and she can take your breath away with the sheer beauty of how she shapes the phrase. The Walcha is striking for the perfection in choice of tempo. From his first note, you are taken with the rightness of how every phrase and ornament is brought to life. The Gilbert is so close to the Walcha, they are hard to distinguish from each other. But the recording of the Gilbert is a bit nasty.

The Gilbert is recorded under a microscope. Every wheeze and click of the harpsichord is magnified 100 time over. You would never hear this level of mechanical noise in a live performance - you would have to bury your head under the lid of the harpsichord to hear these things. So I think the recording engineers killed the Gilbert, as his phrasing is beyond criticism.

So now it's time to eat and doze to Prokofiev's String Quartets.

Whenever I look at music closely like this it never fails to transfix me; it goes in my head and it doesn't stop until I work it all out. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, for some) I simply do not have the time to write everything I want to say out. Suffice it to say though, since I started thinking about this d- prelude and fugue, I can think of nothing else. Each composition of Bach is like this though; so full of life (both profound beauty and spiritual energy). Talking about them is much easier if I could just show someone on the piano. For me this is the most effective or natural way but in the next few minutes that I have I'll just say a few more things.

Mike, right now I'm only focusing on the prelude. In fact, on the piano I'm really only working on the first 5 bars. Because I know you have the score and a piano at home I'll say just a couple more things quickly today for you.

For the rest, if you have seen my previous post (which I wrote very quickly) I just want to be clear that their are more ways to skin a cat, as they say. I'm only really expressing how I would, (today) approach this piece. And this is only after spending maybe 30 minutes at the piano deciding what this piece might be about.

For those without a score (or no interest) I don't know how this could help in any way but hopefully it just adds a little insight to your listening experience.

I tried to give an indication as to how one translates notes on a page and turns them into something that lives and breaths (ie. life). When I start analyzing a piece it involves many facets. To understand the mood, I look at the key and time signature. I mentioned about the base beat before and the importance of the note that jumps the main beat. Another point to describe is the comparison of the two main voices (as I see it today). Bach wrote this with a 3:1 ratio of notes compared treble and bass. This means the throughout you might have 24 notes in the treble played against 8 in the bass. Do we want to hear every note? Probably not. Refer back to how I described the voices in music as our spoken voices.

For me, when I think of this prelude now I think of a real chatty "motor mouth" character as the treble voice (possibly a woman?). The bass has a total different character. He says less, he says it differently. The whole prelude is a little exchange of their discussion and in some parts I actually believe they are having a heated argument.

I'll leave the listener to decide who is speaking and when. But if we are talking about Hewitt just listen and trust her. In my mind she makes it perfectly clear. Sometimes one voice, sometimes the other, sometimes both at the same time. The music score makes it clear. Mike, compare the first really big declaration in bar 15 with bar 23. In the former they each shout their position but it is a back and forth; treble/bass/treble/bass all in one bar on each beat. Bar 23 shows them each angrily stating their position at the same time. This building of tension and thicker writing is a hallmark of this pieces for sure. You then reach this climax or boiling point, then you resolve it and we all go home happy. So for those without the score (yes you Geoff !!) listen to this prelude more than once while concentrating on what Hewitt is bringing out in the two voices and consider these voices to be two different people who are discussing something but are maybe each giving their own, different view point.

Also, for those without a score listen to any of the high notes that come out louder than the rest. Hewitt only emphasizes a select few but realize that every one of those notes are jumping the beat. It may not matter for your listening experience to know this but from a harmonic standpoint this is how Bach wrote it.

Mike, the last thing I can say for now is concerning this point about the feeling of the harmony. For both the prelude and fugue I would suggest having a photocopy and using different color highlighters to figure out the voicing. If you can sit at the piano and do this it it much easier because you can continually check yourself.

Earlier where I tried to show (how I would try to learn this) was with the highlighting of the notes:

From the above (which I would only play once or twice and would then add in the remaining harmony. So a/d turns into a (right hand) / d(left hand) d f a (right hand), then d/d turns into d (right hand)/ d (left hand) g b-flat (right hand). Remember this will sound like ta / DUM , ta being the pickup note. And the right hand plays a solid chord on the beat. Doing this and variations of it clarifies the harmony for me so I understand where Bach is taking us. Eventually, you will be able to write the progressions out and see the key changes etc moving forward. This is just a little trick I use which helps me learn and understand the harmony, melody and rhythm.

By the time you get to the point of a Hewitt you will note that none of this above tinkering is apparent. It all sounds effortless and moves with such flow but a great artist is able to show this things subtly and without you even knowing what's happening.

Geoff, I think that's a fantastic idea of comparing different performances and comparing the harpsichord to piano etc. Will the outcome be the same?

Best Regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Droodzilla, my progression through the classics over the past forty years has been, in this order, Mahler, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Beethoven, Brahms, Hindemith and now Bach. I have listened to many others, but these are the ones I chose to study in some detail.

If you wonder why I started with Mahler, I heard his Fifth Symphony as a young trumpet player, and that was it!

In retrospect, this is a warped progression :-)

I feel this assault on Bach is growing me a new set of ears. Everything else will have to be revisited and reconsidered.

Actually, Mahler is one of the composers I'd like to explore further. A friend of mine collects recordings of his symphomies obsessively, and has at least half a doxen box sets of them. I have just the one (Bernstein on Sony/Columbia), but I haven' given it the attntion I'm sure it deserves. Maybe after all this Bach nonsense has dies down!

Cheers
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Actually, Mahler is one of the composers I'd like to explore further. Nigel

Start a Mahler thread and we can talk about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

I tried to give an indication as to how one translates notes on a page and turns them into something that lives and breaths (ie. life). When I start analyzing a piece it involves many facets. To understand the mood, I look at the key and time signature. I mentioned about the base beat before and the importance of the note that jumps the main beat. Another point to describe is the comparison of the two main voices (as I see it today). Bach wrote this with a 3:1 ratio of notes compared treble and bass. This means the throughout you might have 24 notes in the treble played against 8 in the bass. Do we want to hear every note? Probably not. Refer back to how I described the voices in music as our spoken voices.

For me, when I think of this prelude now I think of a real chatty "motor mouth" character as the treble voice (possibly a woman?). The bass has a total different character. He says less, he says it differently. The whole prelude is a little exchange of their discussion and in some parts I actually believe they are having a heated argument.

I'll leave the listener to decide who is speaking and when. But if we are talking about Hewitt just listen and trust her. In my mind she makes it perfectly clear. Sometimes one voice, sometimes the other, sometimes both at the same time. The music score makes it clear.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike, compare the first really big declaration in bar 15 with bar 23.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the former they each shout their position but it is a back and forth; treble/bass/treble/bass all in one bar on each beat. Bar 23 shows them each angrily stating their position at the same time. This building of tension and thicker writing is a hallmark of this pieces for sure. You then reach this climax or boiling point, then you resolve it and we all go home happy.
Best Regards,
Doug

God bless Florestan for giving bar numbers!

Your analysis of the D Minor Prelude "illuminated" my second listening session today.

All I can say is Thanks :-)

I think all the juice has been squeezed out of the D Minor for me, at least for now. Florestan's analysis clarified the pieces a great deal. I don't feel confident to comment on the fugue, but think I hear what's going on.

To keep it fresh, and also to try out what I think I learned, I am going to move on to F Major, the relative major (D Minor and F Major share a key signature), begin with an inspection of the music, give it a listen or two, then see if I can write a coherent thumbnail analysis.

I hope we can continue playing this game. There is a hint of excitement about it :-)

quote:

Geoff, I think that's a fantastic idea of comparing different performances and comparing the harpsichord to piano etc. Will the outcome be the same?

...Doug I will make a start based on my untrained laymans listening, which is really only noticing perhaps the differences in technique and how that comes across as a musical whole. Obviously what follows is personal opinion and not the assured statements of a music critic so take it in that context and treat it gently gentlemen, where you disagree.

To state the obvious the dynamics built into the piano which have evolved to portray the large orchestral concertos such as Brahms, Grieg or Rachmaninov are actually a hinderance here. To my ear the simple stacatto presentation of the Harpsichord is ideally suited to a large portion of the WTC because of the separation and short life of each note struck.

Hewitts' task, and she rises to the challenge beautifully, is to steer a line between dynamic level, note separation and required crescendo on an instrument that naturally sustains notes for far longer than does the harpsichord.

The immediate difference then that leasps out is the clarity with which each voice interacts with the other(s) especially in the more complex pairs on the harpsichord and allows Walcha to play firmly throughout, acheive marvellous stacatto tension where needed and run everyything at a constant tempii. There is a starkness to the harpsichord which actually helps because Walcha manages the feat of never sounding deeply sad even in the minor keys, which is of course importantly down to old J.S.s joyfull writing.

Hewitt has to use great subtlety to get close to this on that beast of a piano. What lurks for me is the slight atmosphere of restraint that hovers behind her playing because she is reigning in her technique to play gently at all times. This is a particular demand as voice interplay gets more complex and faster. The harpsichord has the potential to sail on through these challenges in the hands of a master and Walcha does that consummately.

To take just three pairs as an example:

1) The opening C Major
Walcha has a lovely time playing the prelude because each note erupts out of silence and the progression which never fails to pull at the heartstrings just hangs there in space gloriously.
Hewitt on the other hand chooses to play softly especially at first where she is using the soft pedal quite a lot and that for me is a little dead sounding. As the prelude progresses she opens out and it starts to flower. It has lovely tone but doesn't quite get to me the way Walcha does.
The Fugue gets pretty complex at times and here again the advantage of the harpsichord is in the way lines remain more discrete whereas they start to merge into each other more on the piano and it is only because Hewitt is so skillfull that is does not start to get a bit muddy.

2) Mikes' favorite until just a moment ago the D Minor.
I really like the way Hewitt plays this pair. She actually 'bounces' along with stacatto punch in the prelude which has a lovely pace to it and the depth of tone on the piano is now an advantage. In the fugue she plays with stutters in the tempo at cleverly chosen points which I enjoy when I am listening to them.
Walcha can't create 'bounce' on the harpsichord even if he wanted to. He settles into a quite fast but very steady tempo which has its own merits. In the fugue Walcha choses a different tempo from Hewitt and plays at that tempo continuously which is another successfull solution for this piece. Overall I prefer Hewitt but a lot of that comes from her clever use of the pianos' inherent characteristics.

3) Mikes' new choice the F Major .
Oh boy what a choice. It will take some work for Doug an Mike to analyse this pair. For me it is all about the stringing together of voices that can't fully restrain themselves and break into arpeggios ( probably the wrong term) at times. The whole package of prelude and fugue are fast and a real challenge to keep control of. Walcha is onto a winner here because he can play through it at full power and the natural behavior of the harpsichord keeps it all separated in space so you never loose which voice is saying what. Interestingly he moves straight into the fugue with nary a pause so it almost seems one piece and that fits because there is strong continuity between the two parts.
Again Hewitt is very clever in how she manages the flood of notes in the prelude but she is trapped just a little by the pianos' tendency to merge the notes. She has to bring all her skills of 'touch' together to do the excellent job she does, but on balance I slightly prefer Walcha for the clarity of the note progressions.

The truth is that each version is a demonstration of great skill and thought on interpretation

If you start playing Walcha, as it proceeds, it all sounds 'right' and the elements that the harpsichord brings to the performance have a naturalness to them that seems perfectly in keeping with Bachs' composition. The harpsichord could rapidly become edgy sounding to the modern ear if not played correctly but that never happens with Walcha who knows exactly what he wants to acheive and controls this perfectly.

If instead you start fresh, playing the Hewitt, a different but just as engaging progression occurs. There is an element of more obvious application of skill to control the piano but this is done beautifully so it never really intrudes and you are drawn into, dare I say, a more peacefull and smooth sound which is just as much a joy to listen to.

Enjoy both...that's what I do.

regards
geoff

To sum up the Walcha/Hewitt comparison of the D Minor Book 1, the Walcha runs like a clockwork, but the Hewitt is a creature of flesh and blood.

The level of expression Hewitt draws from the piano is astounding, and completely beyond the reach of a harpsichord.

Still, it is becoming a habit to always listen to both.

But the burning question of the moment is "Where is George?"

I am looking at the harmonic structure of the Book 1 F Major prelude. It's going to take longer than I thought. The rate of harmonic movement is astounding. I guess you won't be hearing from me for a while ...

quote:

It's going to take longer than I thought. The rate of harmonic movement is astounding. I guess you won't be hearing from me for a while ...

...now you know what I meant when I said earlier "Oh boy what a choice. It will take some work for Doug an Mike to analyse this pair".

Geoff, I am afraid we have to wait on Doug. These are beyond my skill level. If Doug writes up the F Major, I know enough to follow what he says, but not enough to answer on my own. I have to break a sweat in analysis of a Bach Chorale, which is where I should be spending my time until I have some dexterity.

I'm hoping he does so, because what he wrote of the D Minor was a tremendous aid to comprehension.

And I have the feeling George could help here too.

When you get water up your nose, you have to swim or move back into the shallow end of the pool ...

quote:

...Doug I will make a start based on my untrained laymans listening,

Nonsense Geoff! What you wrote reflects insightful knowledge and a well trained ear. This was very well written and leaves me begging for more...I only wish I could write like you or George, for instance, on music; so concise, to the point, and logical. So apologies for my usual "emotional" blathering (writing) in the past and what is coming...

Unfortunately, where I can't really comment is in the fact that I have not heard the Walcha on harpsichord. From your writing, it is apparent that you probably lean to the Walcha slightly or at least hold it in high regard. This has wetted my appetite even more and somehow / someway I will try to get my hands on this. What I can say is that I own both sets of his Bach organ recordings so I believe I understand his style and approach to the playing of Bach.

While I cannot disagree with anything you wrote (save one or two points) I notice you pay a lot of attention to how Bach should sound. This of course mainly brings us back to the instrument used to perform on and the presupposition that the music can only be understood if I believe I am listening based on rules, theories, and laws that I believe a composer expected to be enforced. I look at this dilemma this way. I know that Bach really had three different types of keyboards to play on and write for in his lifetime (mainly between 1685-1750). The piano keyboard was really only in its infancy by the mid-eighteenth century but has become the instrument of choice ever since. I also cannot deny the fact that certain Preludes or Fugues do certainly come off better on a particular keyboard. Case in point: from Book 1, I can easily imagine the C+ Prelude being particularly well suited for playing on a clavichord, the D+ Fugue is clearly written for and played on a harpsichord and the E-flat+ Prelude I think would be most effective when played on an organ.

For the benefit of all, I'd describe a clavichord as a instrument with a soft-tone but a highly responsive touch (meaning the performer has control over how a note is played). The clavichord has often been cited as Bach's favorite keyboard. A harpsichord has a bigger tone but is not touch-responsive (meaning it doesn't really matter how you push a key - you get the same result). The harpsichord has a more disconnected sound which gives it the advantage of playing many notes quickly and not having to worry about overlap or the sound hanging in the air for long. An organ of course does have the ability to sustain any note so long as the key is held down. Not really touch-responsive either but you can effectively create different effects in how a note is played. Certainly, the pipe organ is capable of being the loudest of them all.

So Geoff, while I agree with the "enjoy both the piano and harpsichord" sentiment I think it comes down to philosophy and personality in the end. Neither is right or wrong in my opinion but we have to go with what we believe in to be true to ourselves. Furthermore, I have to say that when I select one over the other to listen to it totally changes the landscape for me. My mood is clearly different from both and the way I listen to either is certainly different. In my case, since I've been playing the piano since I was 3 years old, it's fair to say I have a clear bias and disposition for the piano and I could never judge these things in fairness. Knowing this, I have to honestly say that the harpsichord leaves me emotionally cold. This is just me and I in no way mean to disparage any other viewpoint (in fact, I am glad beyond belief when I can read about the equal passion that say George, in particular, often writes about in the Music Room!!!!). The reason is that I am learning to see things differently and gaining knowledge and threads like this are slowing changing my perceptions and winning me over.

quote:

There is a starkness to the harpsichord which actually helps because Walcha manages the feat of never sounding deeply sad even in the minor keys, which is of course importantly down to old J.S.s joyfull writing.

This is the part Geoff that I still have what we might say as philosophical differences in. Based on what I wrote above it is clear that no matter what you input into a harpsichord it will consistently deliver the same result (based on the individual instrument, of course). (ie. no chance to inject any emotion). Many would argue that since Bach had a harpsichord at his disposal that this meant his intentions were "set in stone" and unchangeable (ie. emotion was intentionally excluded). If this is so, then, in my humble opinion, this turns Bach's vocation from a composer/musician into a computer programmer. His notes are simply 0's and 1's and it is what it is. I on the other hand believe Bach was well aware of the effective use of keys and the difference between major and minor modes.

If he intended to have all voices and the complete harmony to be delivered statically and in the same virtual "plane" that our ear perceives he would not have written fugues for the organ (an instrument capable of delivering each voice in a different character). (ie. creating different sound planes).

So it is this "starkness," as you say, that happens to leave me cold. For me, this means that the same piece of music tends to feel more like background music than something that emotionally pulls me in. It is also the monotony. I am less likely to be able to read a book while listening to the piano version than the harpsichord.

Although I agree that much of Bach's music expresses an intrinsic joy I think it is misleading to imply that all of Bach's music is joyful in nature (or needs to be). Listen to the Prelude in E-flat minor, Book I. I do not know how Bach would intend his writing here to be conveyed as joyful. I want and need this to be felt as only the minor key can so poignantly deliver. It is profoundly sad, noble, and larger than I can find words to express it in. Another example that shows Bach knew how to use mood and key is in the listening of the Cantatas. Certainly the crucifixion of Christ is not meant to be as joyful as the the birth or resurrection. One has to be portrayed as being very sad/mournful and the happy with unbound happiness; the former needs the minor mode and the latter needs the major mode.

I do agree their are limits to how a Baroque composer from Germany in the eighteenth-century would express emotion. Their are limits but I personally believe it is still part of the music. I wouldn't listen to Bach or spend years trying to learn how to play this music if I didn't feel the emotional connection (from the full gamut or range of emotions).

Thanks again for your wonderful response.

Best Regards,
Doug

quote:

But the burning question of the moment is "Where is George?"

... wondering how to put into words my response to this:-

To sum up the Walcha/Hewitt comparison of the D Minor Book 1, the Walcha runs like a clockwork,

even if i might not disagree that it is possible to see this:_

but the Hewitt is a creature of flesh and blood.

as being true, even if I could never conceive of Walcha being any less of flesh and blood.

I have no idea how to respond!

I suppose that I think we all respond differently to this, and I personally have never felt there to be a conversation going on the D minnor Prelude as was suggested earlier, but then, where I have in the past had quite direct imaginings of a sort programme for non-programme music before, these have always faded over time. The peculiar thing is that what was compared to a conversation, is what I would call a building of tension by musical means! But apart from realising that it is happening, I have never really seen the need to work out exactly what the exact means employed are!

ATB from George

PS: What was seen as a sort of two voice discourse is what I think I had picked up as being the main musical idea to be found below the rolling over right hand line in my thumb-nail analysis:

[The] D Minor [Prelude] has a rolling over idea in the right hand and the true thematic ideas which are not so even as the top line given in the middle of the keyboard. The very end of it contains a very odd progression, which sounds not quite tonal (and very modern to my ear at least) even this long after the composition. Walcha fully brings this out with some gentle slowing in the final bars. The Fugue, though quite fast has a tragic depth to it, but seems to me rather a clear structure. No tricks here! I can't see where a clockwork comparison comes into it really

What I have noted about the composition of the F major prelude, it is in 12/8, which is four beats to the measure, subdivided by 3, the two voices are 3 against 6, and the voices move across hands.

Trills are usually on an accidental and move through a number of chords in the left hand over their duration.

I tried to "pull apart" the first few bars.

The Prelude opens in F Major, and moves through the chord progression, I-IV-V-I in the first two bars. A B natural trill, followed by a C# trill (leading tone to D) takes you into D Minor.

I think this is what I see, but would like confirmation from someone with more skills.

One pattern that stands out in the music, but not clearly heard for me, is the concurrent use of a quarter note-eighth note pattern and an eight note-quarter note pattern, which sounds together something like a triplet.

My wife has suggested that I pick apart the sequences under a trill on an accidental, and sort out the accidentals in the other hand into leading tones and tones that move major-minor or minor-major by moving the third.

(This much took me about 15 minutes).

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
To sum up the Walcha/Hewitt comparison of the D Minor Book 1, the Walcha runs like a clockwork,

even if i might not disagree that it is possible to see this:_

but the Hewitt is a creature of flesh and blood.

as being true, even if I could never conceive of Walcha being any less of flesh and blood.

I have no idea how to respond!

Growing up a wind player, I quickly learned there are two principle means for shaping a phrase on my instrument : (1) Inflection in the articulation and (2) brightening or dulling the overtones using the breath. On the piano, Hewitt makes full use of the powers of inflection in the articulation, which to my ears breaths life into the phrase. That isn't there to be heard on the harpsichord.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. Trying to comprehend these Preludes and Fugues is moving me to the edge of my comfort level and beyond.

I'm trying to make it to the next step on the staircase.

Mike, that is simply an excellent start in taking a stab at understanding the score. At the moment I'm actually heading out shortly for the weekend so I won't have any time to devote to this at the moment.

In response to the inference made above I think I should reiterate that the ideas and imagery that were presented for the d- prelude mainly were just that; suggestions to help someone think about what this Prelude "could" be. As a student and teacher, I always found that it takes a real skill to give (or receive) that "a ha" moment where the light bulb turns on suddenly. If the first attempt doesn't work then one has to change their approach until you connect directly with an individual. It can become anything really if you decide to present it by shining the light from a different angle. In no way did I wish to imply that how I suggested is the only way. In fact, as I learn this piece my approach will likely change on a daily/weekly basis.

We were comparing Hewitt specifically though here and this is what I felt from her interpretation; namely, it is a rhythmic dance. One normally doesn't dance alone. After numerous listens I could clearly hear the shape, character, and voicing of the bass theme against a joyful, carefree, meandering of the treble (with the appropriate chirping responses thrown in). I should also mention how seamlessly Hewitt passes the exchange around and hands off the lead. I didn't hear this to clearly on the first listen but from subsequent listens it becomes clearly (especially when using/following the score). I can understand that if one is reading this and thinking only of Walcha's interpretation then their is bound to be a disconnect.

Again, I have to stress that one doesn't normally hear voicing / harmonies at the outset and if you don't look for these things you will likely only be hearing the unitized, overall effect. Nothing wrong with this but again it isn't the only way. So for example, for those who find it a joy to learn and play this music they will understand that it isn't nearly as difficult to just play all notes at face value (no dynamics/voicing). This is really quite easy to do on a harpsichord because, quite frankly, that is really all you can do. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I believe it to be close to the truth. So I understand when one argues that all the harmony is written into the music and the harpsichordist just plays it as a master like Bach has written. This approach does have intrigue and redemptive values as well. It's just that it isn't the only way. A good pianist has to decide upon a myriad of choices (voicing, dynamics, touch) to present a particular or effective character for a piece.

For a listening experience though I think it is helpful to listen to a pianist like Hewitt (or others) because they act as our informed guide. Everyone chooses to tell the story differently but at least our ear / senses have something to follow. I could not learn this piece to play on the piano without understanding the details or at least formulating my own interpretation of how I want to say it. However, I can see that if I am only listening then their is really no need to make it so complicated. I just enjoy it for what it is to me. So apologies for presenting this here. My viewpoints really only reflect my own needs (shortsighted maybe?) as I spend time in my living room with my piano and this music. I'm trying to learn though along the journey....

Best Regards,
Doug

Dear Doug,

I should think that no one is going to ask you to apologise for posting in this thread!

On the other hand there is a lot more to playing the harpsichord than most pianist would give credit for!

It is not like dot to dot drawing! In fact I would suggest that control of tone [directly related to touch - variable speed of attack changes the brightness of the note even if the dynamic is not significantly changed] and articulation as well as a certain subtle approach to rubato is essential, just for starters. It may be noted how vigourous Walcha actual attack actually is on occasion on the harpsichord, as well as his incredibly variaged approach to articulation ...

In other words he is using the full gamut of expressive devices that Bach anticipated when composing the music for the harpsichord.

You will have worked out that I find the piano to be a far from ideal instrument for me to listen to this music on, I am sure! On the other hand I am glad people are listening to Bach, even as I might note, on the piano!

I would have no desire to listen to Beethoven's Emperor Concerto played by an orchestra but with harpsichord soloist!

Almost all of Bach's compositions contain dance rhythms and the necessary rhythmic lift that this implies is crucial to stylish playing!

ATB from George

One of the things that I find striking in the F Major, is the use of diminished chords.

They don't lead you anywhere in particular, but they have a tremendous forward momentum.

So you are rushing headlong into the breech, with no idea where you might end up.

Very exciting!

My wife and I just had a conversation about the freedoms opened in a minor key. There are three different forms of minor key, with different offerings as to what the seventh might be.

My wife tells me that by Mozart's time, your options as to what that seventh might be were cast in stone. But in the Baroque, you were free to pick your favorite among the options (for the seventh).

So the Baroque had improvisational elements that vanished in the Classical era.

The Prokofiev breaks are quite welcome. As wild as he gets, you can usually sort out his meaning on the fly.

Bach is not so easy.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Walcha ... his incredibly variaged approach to articulation ...

George, give me something specific to listen to to hear this, because I don't get that at all, and it's definitely something I'm listening for.