Bach: Musical Values or Arbitrary Rules?
Posted by: Florestan on 26 October 2014
With any music, is any listening or performing experience supposed to be about the musical value we hope to derive from it or is it simply about the sound (i.e.. harpsichord vs. piano vs. ?) or other arbitrary rules insisted on by many?
A relative recent phenomenon or movement in the last century seems to impose a rather harsh set of rules on playing or listening to western art music. Rather curiously though this imposition seems to start with and be squarely placed on the music and shoulders of Johann Sebastian Bach. Other targets exist too but due to my own interest in the music of Bach, I’ll use him to center my questioning around as I find it very interesting to understand why this is happening? I am on and have been on a quest for my own personal journey in music for nearly my whole life save about the first four years (both as a pianist and one who enjoys the pleasure of listening).
So, in general, the question or statement that has tripped me up and backed me into a corner of submission the most often is in some form of view that, “Bach only wrote music intended for the harpsichord.” Alternatively, it comes in the form of, “Bach did not write music intended to be played on a piano or modern grand piano.”
This represents a rather hard-line approach to take when all is said and done in my view. There seems to be no middle ground here and I have wondered for years why not? In music or art, is there room for only an “either / or” approach? In my mind, the obvious answer is a firm no.
While my preference will undoubtedly be for a piano in any case I do not want this to be a debate about my preference. I listen to harpsichord music being played all the time and enjoy it and respect it in its own right as well. What I am mostly hoping to answer here for myself and to resolve in my mind the untidy argument that wants to force people to comply one way or the other?
The first reason and most obvious response that I have against the law setting and impositions of the HIPster movement is that no one can (or should) not speak authoritatively for a dead person nor one that you have never met, for that matter. I know that I have myself many ideas and beliefs about my favourite composers but I do know I do have to temper these and remember that there is a difference between fact and opinion. I can only ever offer an opinion on any topic related to music of dead composers.
The second question I have for the many posed against a rendering of the music of Bach on a modern grand piano is why is it only ever usually stated that Bach only intended to write for the harpsichord? I mean, why have I never heard people argue that Bach only intended to write keyboard music to be played back on an organ or clavichord? Why just the harpsichord?
I will say in response to this that I do wholly agree with the argument that some music is written that takes full advantage of a specific instrument. It is plain to see that some music does suit the physics of the “machine” better. Bach was intelligent and of course did understand the physics and of course exploited these advantages but at the same time would have also been quite aware of the disadvantages and limitations.
A careful examination of Das Wohltemperierte Klavier is a good starting point to rebut this. Is it written entirely for only a harpsichord specifically? No! In my opinion, you could easily argue based on the writing that the works individually fall into at least three main types of writing which means those tending to be written for a harpsichord, for a clavichord, or for an organ (the three main keyboards Bach had at his disposal at that time). Examples of this group from book 1 might be (entirely random and my opinion) the D major fugue, the E major prelude, and the c-sharp minor fugue, respectively. If time were on Bach’s side we would add a fortepiano and eventually our modern grand piano (IMHO).
The harpsichord is perfectly suited for fast, brilliant sections and quick ornamentation but at the same time it generally sounds mechanical (the sound is produced by plucking a string). Physically, there is no way to affect the outcome of the sound produced by pressing a key differently thus it tends to be severely inexpressive as a result. It produces a wall of sound and is at its best when many fast notes are played together. Otherwise, next to the harpsichord’s real ability is to produce a flurry of sound it cannot produce a rise or fall in loudness and at the same time can easily be drowned out when playing in a chamber/concerto situation depending on the size of room.
A clavichord did add the benefit of being able to change the tone and colour of the sonority of sound by skilfully changing the way you pressed the key. Bach quite liked this feature from what we read but the clavichord was a very soft instrument very well suited for a home mostly.
The organ of course was the grandest of all of these instruments and was the first one fully suited to appreciate the counterpoint Bach cherished in his writing for more than one voice. Of course, an organ can achieve an infinite length of sustain of any note so long as you hold the key down. Combine this with two, three, four or even five voices and the result is truly fascinating.
So fair enough. Bach wrote music on instruments that he had at his disposal but is the essence of the music related to what it is played on or better yet, that it is played?
If authenticity is the only means to an end then why stop at the harpsichord in general. It should not be good enough just to play on a harpsichord but only on the very harpsichord that Bach composed on or played on and so on.
Other examples of this might be for Chopin. We all know that Chopin wrote almost exclusively for the piano but only rarely do we today go to the extreme of insisting his music is invalid unless it is played on a piano from his time such as the 1820’s, 1830’ or 1840’s. The pianos of his period were still being developed and are quite different to those of today. Today’s grand pianos largely are based on the pianos developed in the 1850’s and later where they finally came into there own. Yet I personally do not feel robbed of any intrinsic musical meaning today playing Chopin on a modern grand piano.
I do not personally see any evidence that Bach himself would share many of these hard line views on what his music is played on. The numerous transcriptions that Bach himself created over all the forms of his musical output certainly would contradict or cross the so-called line that some think exists. I also see in many of my scores of keyboard music that he wrote introductions that focused on developing an inquisitive mind and cantabile playing all of which points to a man wanting us to enjoy this music. Cantabile (meaning in a singing style) is not possible to play on a harpsichord. Mostly though, I think Bach would have liked us to be aware of just how ingenious his music is – for his time and all time. Without repeating myself too much please refer to my ideas on this from several years ago.
Bach: "For Inquisitive Young Musicians"
So in the end I do not want anyone to discount the value of the harpsichord. It has a truly historic value that needs to be respected and maintained. Today though I really think it comes down to a personal choice. I do not believe one is right and the other wrong. I listen to both but the piano certainly outnumbers the harpsichord versions in my listening preference maybe 25 to 1.
My main concern is to question why only claim the harpsichord as the only keyboard. In German, the Klavier does not refer to a specific instrument – it refers to ALL keyboard instruments. Secondly, Bach was German and it seems strange that the harpsichord (known more as the keyboard of French & English composers of the time) is viewed as the only keyboard of a German composer. If I were to embrace the logic of those who argue for a particular instrument, my money would be on the organ or clavichord over the harpsichord as being the exclusive keyboard of a German composer but of course I do not espouse these views period.
Lastly, if it is of the utmost importance to only play Bach keyboard works on a harpsichord one has to ask whether even thinking about the music in your head is allowed. Can I whistle a tune or sing in the shower or in the car on the way to work. Yikes, I’m going to prison….
Really, it is true as said elsewhere that some music does not translate well onto other instruments. In my very humble opinion though I find that his music is so strong and universal that I lose no connection with it in doing so. In fact, (and I’m only being honest here) if there was no modern grand piano today the music of Bach would be nearly dead and unknown to most. Today, the biggest argument among musicians seems to be between piano brands (Steinway vs. Fazioli vs. ?). It all relates to the sound that each person believes is ideal.
I am looking forward to a good discussion about music and ideas you may have on this subject.
Best Regards,
Doug
Well, in a funny twist of fate as I was re-listening to the above musical examples I decided to go through my October 2014 Gramophone (that just came tonight - one month late). I was reading the cover article on Angela Hewitt's new "The Art of Fugue" recording.
I know this is only yet another opinion but it is the opinion of a very intelligent woman who actually CAN and DOES play the whole of Bach's keyboard music so I put extra faith in this as compared to a scholarly pundit who cannot even play one note. If you would allow me I would like to quote two paragraphs from this article that will add some learned perspective to this discussion I think.
from Gramophone magazine (October 2014) and quoting Angela Hewitt and writer Philip Clark:
'I don't think of it as piano music,' Hewitt asserts, and I'm reassured. 'I feel, especially during the slow fugues, that it's vocal music. I'd love to hear No 1 and 10 sung beautifully - and that's what I try to do with each line. With some of the fugues, when I was beginning to work on them, I sang every voice in the tempo I wanted to play them at, and then marked in the breath. I'm not thinking of the piano, but the instrument allows me to imitate the human voice and, elsewhere, an organ; an oboe; an orchestra. The range of dynamics I can achieve is terrific. Some of the fugues sound very effective on the harpsichord. Bach designed the pieces with contrasting countersubjects. He does things with the spacing of voicings that are intelligible on a monochrome instrument. But on a piano you're actually able to distinguish different voices - the piano can make this music sing.'
The argument persists, though, that the piano - and especially the equally tempered modern grand - makes Bach's music sing in a way that he never intended. Harpsichords pluck strings; pianos hammer them. 'But this is why the piano was invented,' Hewitt counters. 'In his last years he tried the fortepiano and became very interested in it and The Musical Offering was written with the instrument in mind. A keyboard instrument that could properly sing? He'd have loved that. I don't buy the argument that you must play Bach's music on the instrument it was written for.' But what about Trevor Pinnock's unavoidably brilliant 1979 recording of the Goldberg Variations, where compositional nuts-and-bolts, tuning and keyboard mechanism are all heard singing from the same hymn sheet? 'He makes it come alive, great, but that doesn't mean that the piano can't offer other possibilities. Couperin wrote dedicated harpsichord music; Scarlatti's music demands that harpsichords clang. But Bach remade violin concertos as keyboard concertos - and then the same material turns up vocally. His music had a different relationship to ideas of instrumentation.'
Precisely and this is also what I maintain. Did Bach compose only to handcuff us centuries later to a specific instrument. There is nothing wrong with still preferring the Harpsichord but that is not what the essence of the music is about to me. It is not about the sound either. In this day and age, there are some mighty fine pianos around and they are keyboards that can do an excellent and pleasing job in allowing musicians and listeners alike the opportunity to share in this exceptional music.
Regards,
Doug
Thomas Beecham
Originally Posted by George J:
One must consider the timeline for Beecham's comment. It was made at a time when Landowska was pioneering the harpsichord revival on her special Playel instrument. Her work was pioneering and yet almost killed off the revival with that instrument.
You can say that again!
I got a bunch of her records (for historical study ) and they really were testing my nerve...Copulating skeletons would be the kindest description of them. :/
A Piano has a wider dynamic range and contrasts to express emotional bits out of the music better than a mostly tone'n'textures harpsichord.
Bach's music is so powerful in itself that it doesn't matter what instruments they are used, ( ok, maybe not a bag pipe or Landowska's Playel ) so long as executed to appeal to my spirit.