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 

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by AndyPat:

Doug,

I strongly concur with your analysis. Far too often people forget that music evolves, even an individual work. It is no longer the sole preserve of the composer. And indeed the composer probably had an evolving view of their own work. Why on earth would Bach not want his works to improve as instruments became better? 

I still remember thinking at school that Shakespeare was twoddle. Just needed to see it performed in modern day speech and suddenly it made sense. Well modern anything to be frank (Throne of Blood in Japanese with english subtitles had me riveted). 

I do like the sound of a harpsichord but a piano, of any shade, trumps it.  I think Bach would have loved the opportunity to use a Yamaha electronic keyboard, so why shouldn't it be acceptable for musicians to interpret Bachs intentions without artificial barriers being imposed by others.

 

Andy

Thanks Andy for you comments and input here.  You have raised many valid points and posed questions that I have asked at different points throughout my life (including now).  

 

I sometimes wonder what music lovers will do with (or do to) music of our present day or anything before us?  Maybe in 10 or 20 generations from now what we call classical music today will have disappeared from peoples consciousness?  I wonder today if you asked 100 people on the street today to name one composer of Gregorian Chant and you might get one correct response.

 

I hope not but I sometimes think that a couple hundred years from now the grand piano will have gone the way of the harpsichord into relative obscurity.  Even today, most people are not willing to pay the price of something made from natural products or that is hand made.  In sound replay, the evolution in clear going from a serious group of enthusiasts who had a room full of equipment and rooms full of recordings (that you could touch and hold) to a generation where everything they own fits in the palm of their hand (here today, gone tomorrow).

 

Regarding Bach, the man - I, nor anyone could say, but I personally want to believe that he would roll with the times.  Had he been born 50 years later I don't believe in my heart that he would be leading the charge against the pianoforte but rather he would embrace whatever he had (just like what he did in his own time) and excel at it like no one else.

 

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by Morton:

Bach did not specify an instrument for the Art of Fugue & I have heard it on harpsichord, organ, string quartet & piano, all of which are fine by me.

I think Bach would have been amazed to know that his music would still being listened to more than 250 years after his death & I doubt very much if he would worry too much about which instrument it was played on.

For me personally, I find the harpsichord hard work & generally prefer the piano for Bach.

 

“The sound of a harpsichord – two skeletons copulating on a tin roof in a thunderstorm”

Thomas Beecham

Thanks Morton for this.  

 

I think Bach would have been amazed to know that his music would still being listened to more than 250 years after his death & I doubt very much if he would worry too much about which instrument it was played on.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

It is clear from his music and his own comments that nothing would please him more than people getting his ingenuity.  It's like someone who creates ingenious puzzles that form the basis of  masterpieces of music and finding a critic who is only concerned that the ink you used to write the score was black rather than blue.  I'm sure Bach faced sort even in his own day.

 

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by George J
Originally Posted by Florestan:

Thanks ....

 

I sometimes wonder what music lovers will do with (or do to) music of our present day or anything before us?  Maybe in 10 or 20 generations from now what we call classical music today will have disappeared from peoples consciousness?  I wonder today if you asked 100 people on the street today to name one composer of Gregorian Chant and you might get one correct response.

 

...

 

Regarding Bach, the man - I, nor anyone could say, but I personally want to believe that he would roll with the times.  Had he been born 50 years later I don't believe in my heart that he would be leading the charge against the pianoforte but rather he would embrace whatever he had (just like what he did in his own time) and excel at it like no one else.

 

Doug

Dear Doug,

 

If you asked people in the street for a composer of Gregorian Chant they might reasonable say Pope Gregory I [c. 540 – 12 March 604], but that is the legend, and musicological research shows that what we call Gregorian Chant exists in a much modified form of the chant the Gregory organised from existing Church chants from many regional traditions. Gregory's contribution was actually formalise and standardise [to a large extent] chanting in the Roman Catholic Church, and this was later strengthened when the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne introduced the Gregorian Chanting music into the church of what became know as the Holy Roman Empire, while the chant also came into use right across the rest of Northern and Central Europe including Poland and Norway . The originators of this pre-existing music are lost in the mists of time! 

 

Thus asking for a composer of Gregorian Chant would really be a trick question as no one knows for certain!

 

Whether what we call Classical Music will still be listened to in ten or twenty generations is a speculation that none of us will live to see. We simply are not prophets!

 

However there is some evidence that the music of Buxtehude is now very much more rarely appreciated than it was in the time of JS Bach, so perhaps there really might be a sell by date for music, after which it ceases to communicate with modern society, conditioned by ever evolving sensibilities.

 

On the other hand, Bach is now more appreciated than a century ago, and he was all but unknown a century and half ago at least by the average Joe in the street. It seems that Bach's music probably has never been more appreciated by a larger number of people than it is today, so perhaps there is evidence to point both ways.

 

On Bach's period and whether he would have been a different composer as a contemporary of Haydn [more or less fifty years after his own time], we certainly cannot know how different his music would have been. It seems incinceiveavle that it would have been exactly the same though.

 

After all the high baroque trumpet style had died out entirely, so that when Mozart Arranged Handeld's Messiah he set the trumpet parts for French Horns!

 

And Bach would surely have used the keyboard instruments to hand, so that the Fortepiano would not doubt have figured in his music as the intended instrument. And no doubt like Haydn, his compositional style would have changed to account for the greater sustain of the instrument [compared to the harpsichord] and also the ability to additionally control the dynamic of each note with the wight the player strikes it.

 

Of course, Bach might have been a reactionary who rejected the piano, but I think there is evidence from the Music Offering that in extreme old age he was moving to a more modern composing idiom, with his adoption of the Galante Style for the Flute Sonata contained in the MO.

 

ATB from George

 

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by EJS:
The question of piano vs harpsichord usually is one of historical accuracy vs modernity, isn't it? In my mind I wouldn't see the late Frans Bruggen or Gustav Leonhardt defend anything other than Bach's own instruments for his music, and not purely for musical reasons. That dogmatic view has all but come and gone in today's early music scene.

On a musical level, I must admit I have trouble with listening to Bach's more vocally oriented works on harpsichord for a length of time (WTC, Partitas, AotF). But the 'simpler' stuff like the English suites work very well on harpsichord (Pierre Hantai's recent recording is brilliant) - and some of the best performances of this music on piano don't venture too far from the monochrome idiom (e.g. Ashkenazy's new recording of Bach's two big keyboard suites called the French overture and the Italian concerto).
EJ

EJ, thanks for your well reasoned thoughts on this.  I like the fact that you mention the vocal qualities of the music as this is really the essence of Bach and this is no different to any music I listen to or play regardless of the period.  I believe this cantabile style of playing would be quite valued by Bach.  Unfortunately, I mostly lose my way in Bach if it becomes to academic rather than beautiful.

 

What you find in any score from Bach is lines (or voices) that can be independently sung or sung against the backdrop of another voice (or many).  If you have many singers together you can throw the leading voice around like a conversation (i.e.. not everyone speaking at once - although this is one option too and better so on a harpsichord).  A good player that understands voicing can do this as well on a piano or an organ quite effectively.

 

What amazes me beyond belief is a combination of just that Bach created such works of wonder but that he probably could do this without too much effort and very quickly.  This leaves me in awe being myself just a mere mortal.  

 

Angela Hewitt alludes to this in the quote I gave above but in my own life about 20 or 25 years ago I had for a short time a very good piano teacher.  I spent some time with him working on the Sinfonias (three-part inventions).  His teaching and advice to me was to first work out in the score the counterpoint etc and then work through one at a time the lines (voices) from beginning to end.  Putting it all eventually together can lead to an infinite number of possibilities but he always encouraged me to try an absolutely mind boggling exercise (at least for me) to learn any Bach.  For instance, in a three part invention, you would play just two voices on the piano and sing the third.  Just imagining these three combinations alone is a challenge beyond belief but if you could pull something like this off then I think you are close to starting to come to the bottom of the foot of Mount Bach.

 

I can hardly do something like this but trying it even is still enough to teach you many valuable things about the piece.  I know this is only one way, one opinion but this seems to be what really separates the piano from the harpsichord in that with the piano you can work on a singing tone (with a good piano and with good technique).  

 

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by George J:

Dear doug,

 

I don't advocate that Bach should stop being played on the piano tomorrow, but rather that pianists should stop promoting the bogus view that the piano is better than the harpsichord for Bach's harpsichord music. The piano will do in the absence of of a handy harpsichord, but that is as far as it goes ...

 

ATB from George

 

Originally Posted by Haim Ronen:

Musical pieces played as specified by the composer are always important to me, becoming a reference point to other arrangements and use of modern instruments.

 

Before exploring any other piano versions of Goldberg Variations (beyond Gould's piano) I made sure to familiarize myself with a harpsichord performance of the music. On the same token, I feel guilty of having three versions of Handel's keyboard suites, all played on the piano and none on the original instrument. Something will have to be done about it real soon (SophieYates?).

George and Haim:  Thank you both for two reasonable, level-headed and well thought out responses.   In a long journey I have now come to respect and hold this same view.

 

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by George J

A piano can no more create a singing tone than a harpsichord as both instruments suffer decay from after the initial attack of the individual notes, and that is entirely against the singing tone, which grows after the beginning of the notes as often as it decreases, so neither the the piano not the harpsichord can create a close approach to singing tone.

 

Why do people blur this basic fact? The piano, like all percussion style [based on a hammering or hitting action to create the sound] instruments, cannot make a true singing line because all the notes are in decay [getting softer] after the start.

 

If you want a singing tone from an instrument you need to choose one which can increase the tone after the start of the note, which pretty much takes in all non-percussion and plucked instruments. The violin family are typically the musical instruments that can most accurately be described as being capable of a singing tone.

 

ATB from George

 

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by George J:

Great piano playing on the instrument the music was intended for, and not surprisingly, rather fine!

 

J-M Pires plays Chopin Waltzes ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziKWfnvsgiM

 

I doubt that anyone would try this on a harpsichord ...

 

ATB from George

 

...

Dear George, 

Yes, I honestly understand your valid and correct point here but please allow me to play devil's advocate here for a moment (while putting the "instrument it was intended for" argument off to the side just for a moment..).

 

While I agree I couldn't ever imagine any music of Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Debussy, Rachmaninov etc. etc. played on a harpsichord (although one could say, why not - whatever turns your crank?) I can't say the same for harpsichord music played on a piano.  Yes, it changes the outcome but it remains that the piano is a much more flexible instrument and can play the part (pun intended) in music it may not be intended for.  As a tool, maybe we would describe the harpsichord as a small single blade pocketknife compare to a piano which may be a pocketknife with two sizes of blades and a file? (OK I admit I am not a master of apt analogies)

 

Basically, I feel the harpsichord has one job.  It is narrow focus for music and a style limited to one era.  It does one job and does it well.  The piano on the other hand can come in and fairly adequately play many parts / rolls quite readily.

 

As Angela Hewitt reminded us, this is why the hammers of a piano did away with the plucking of a string and I along with millions other since have a piano in our houses rather than a harpsichord.

 

I have said elsewhere that I am happier to play Chopin though on a piano of today or one from the past 100 - 150 years than one from his time period.  This is because pianos were still changing in Chopin's day.  Even of all the modern pianos there are very few that I would pick as being worthy instruments.  There are few that have the fine, rich, dark, warm, bell like tone that I seek ( I hate cold, percussive sounding (asian) instruments that have no character).  Unfortunately, these positive qualities that I seek are absent from a harpsichord - completely.

 

Best Regards,

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by George J

Dear Doug,

 

I fully understand your enthusiasm and love of your chosen instrument, the piano.

 

Like you when I had three successive double basses, I had at least for the last two, a very clear notion of the qualities I wanted from them. qualities that I knew I could employ to some musical worth for sure.

 

Now you have written persuasively about the tonal qualities you want from the piano:

 

"There are few that have the fine, rich, dark, warm, bell like tone that I seek."

 

And for music written for the piano I am sure that from an instrument of your choice that you can make a compelling musical performance.

 

It is also true that harpsichords have a different palette of timbres, though some of the adjectives you use do cross-over to the harpsichord. Rich. A good harpsichord has a rather beguilingly rich tenor and bass tessitura!

 

And is there a warmer or more inviting timbre on any keyboard than the Lute-stop on a harpsichord? I think not, myself.

 

In terms of Bell-like, I suspect that you imply [though I may be wrong] a focussed quality on the pitch and finesse of each note. This is something a good harpsichord has as well.

 

As I said earlier on in this thread I am all for people playing the piano in Bach if there is no handy harpsichord, and that they do not try to persuades everyone else that Bach would have loved this transformation. We cannot know that, but we do know that Bach was certainly not haphazard in his choice of instruments. When he recast the same piece of music for new instrumental combinations - the parodies - then he often changed the tonic key, altered rhythms, added or removed notes from the melody line, sometimes added extra-contrapuntal lines - for the sake of the qualities of the new scored instruments - though only very rarely did the number of bars change or the important moments of modulation, which in any case are more architectural aspects.

 

No doubt that had a really attractive fortepiano have come to Bach's attention he would have composed music for it that was tailored to its specific qualities.

 

I am not saying that the piano cannot be played like a harpsichord.

 

Artur Schnabel used to play Bach on a piano like that, with very even dynamics, and a complete absence of voice leading in fugues and so on. The Gramophone Magazine critics of his HMV recordings made in London asked why Schnabel had not used a harpsichord in the first place?

 

So somehow the poor pianists is stuck somewhere between a rock and a hard place on this!

 

I was listening to the Violin Sonata BWV 1014 the other day with a harpsichord and gut-strung baroque violin. The harpsichord almost surreptitiously setting the scene, in very few notes, and achieving a serene quietness, such that when the first note of the violin emerges from the tracery of the harpsichord it was like a shaft of early morning sunlight through the mist and the branches of the pine trees around! Bach knew exactly what he was doing, and this scoring is as sonically delicious as any the great Debussy would come up with over a century later! It is simply luscious!

 

I'd say that the old instruments in this performance [+] bring out a sense of atmosphere that was indeed Bach's intention, and it is in part due to the very contrast of the sung violin entering with a warmth that is utterly beguiling for it emerging from the crystalline, quiet and gentle introduction of the harpsichord.

 

Now there is a point here. These two players knew what they were trying to achieve and managed it beautifully. But if the violinist had been one of those intense [loads of vibrato] modern [post-Heifetz] types, then the effect would have been lost, and if the harpsichord had been one of those aggressive Playel jobs, the magic would have evaporated fasted than the morning mist in the sun!

 

Equally, I simply don't think any piano could ever equal the suspect that the harpsichord brings in this performance.

 

ATB from George

 

[+] names to follow.

 

 

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by George J:
Originally Posted by Florestan:

Thanks ....

 

I sometimes wonder what music lovers will do with (or do to) music of our present day or anything before us?  Maybe in 10 or 20 generations from now what we call classical music today will have disappeared from peoples consciousness?  I wonder today if you asked 100 people on the street today to name one composer of Gregorian Chant and you might get one correct response.

 

...

 

Regarding Bach, the man - I, nor anyone could say, but I personally want to believe that he would roll with the times.  Had he been born 50 years later I don't believe in my heart that he would be leading the charge against the pianoforte but rather he would embrace whatever he had (just like what he did in his own time) and excel at it like no one else.

 

Doug

Dear Doug,

 

If you asked people in the street for a composer of Gregorian Chant they might reasonable say Pope Gregory I [c. 540 – 12 March 604], but that is the legend, and musicological research shows that what we call Gregorian Chant exists in a much modified form of the chant the Gregory organised from existing Church chants from many regional traditions. Gregory's contribution was actually formalise and standardise [to a large extent] chanting in the Roman Catholic Church, and this was later strengthened when the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne introduced the Gregorian Chanting music into the church of what became know as the Holy Roman Empire, while the chant also came into use right across the rest of Northern and Central Europe including Poland and Norway . The originators of this pre-existing music are lost in the mists of time! 

 

Thus asking for a composer of Gregorian Chant would really be a trick question as no one knows for certain!

 

Whether what we call Classical Music will still be listened to in ten or twenty generations is a speculation that none of us will live to see. We simply are not prophets!

 

However there is some evidence that the music of Buxtehude is now very much more rarely appreciated than it was in the time of JS Bach, so perhaps there really might be a sell by date for music, after which it ceases to communicate with modern society, conditioned by ever evolving sensibilities.

 

On the other hand, Bach is now more appreciated than a century ago, and he was all but unknown a century and half ago at least by the average Joe in the street. It seems that Bach's music probably has never been more appreciated by a larger number of people than it is today, so perhaps there is evidence to point both ways.

 

On Bach's period and whether he would have been a different composer as a contemporary of Haydn [more or less fifty years after his own time], we certainly cannot know how different his music would have been. It seems incinceiveavle that it would have been exactly the same though.

 

After all the high baroque trumpet style had died out entirely, so that when Mozart Arranged Handeld's Messiah he set the trumpet parts for French Horns!

 

And Bach would surely have used the keyboard instruments to hand, so that the Fortepiano would not doubt have figured in his music as the intended instrument. And no doubt like Haydn, his compositional style would have changed to account for the greater sustain of the instrument [compared to the harpsichord] and also the ability to additionally control the dynamic of each note with the wight the player strikes it.

 

Of course, Bach might have been a reactionary who rejected the piano, but I think there is evidence from the Music Offering that in extreme old age he was moving to a more modern composing idiom, with his adoption of the Galante Style for the Flute Sonata contained in the MO.

 

ATB from George

 

George, I very much appreciate your response here and the valuable information it contains.  I was careless in how I posed the question and you very correctly caught this.  I only meant to illustrate that I do not believe the general population (now or even previously in time) knows a lot about this topic.  However, in contrast you ask someone from the general population who scored a goal at a 1'-56" in OT on the 7th game of the finals in 1982 and they will likely tell you.

 

 

Yes, more people today may know something of Bach or Buxtehude than anytime in history previously but it is plain to see in my view that topics like this are still rather obscure and fodder for a niche market only. 

 

Regards,

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by George J

Bach Violin sonata, BWV 1014.

 

Luis Otavio Santos [haprsichord], Pieter-Jan Belder baroque violin]

 

On Brilliant Classics. Unfortunately 157 CDs!

 

But worth every penny of their cost of about £1 per CD.

 

ATB from George

 

Edit formalist post:

 

Equally, I simply don't think any piano could ever equal the suspense that the harpsichord brings in this performance.

 

ATB from George

 

[+] names to follow.

 

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by George J

Dear Doug,

 

One of the really nice things about such a forum as this, is there is only one person I know well enough personally - A Cambridge Mus Doc. - with whom I could have such a discussion as this. While we may be coming at this from either end of the stick, at least we can have a discussion that is illuminating and to be honest - at least I hope so, certainly for me - interesting and something to learn from.

 

Thanks for the lovely thread.

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by George J:

Dear Doug,

 

I fully understand your enthusiasm and love of your chosen instrument, the piano.

 

Like you when I had three successive double basses, I had at least for the last two, a very clear notion of the qualities I wanted from them. qualities that I knew I could employ to some musical worth for sure.

 

Now you have written persuasively about the tonal qualities you want from the piano:

 

"There are few that have the fine, rich, dark, warm, bell like tone that I seek."

 

And for music written for the piano I am sure that from an instrument of your choice that you can make a compelling musical performance.

 

It is also true that harpsichords have a different palette of timbres, though some of the adjectives you use do cross-over to the harpsichord. Rich. A good harpsichord has a rather beguilingly rich tenor and bass tessitura!

 

And is there a warmer or more inviting timbre on any keyboard than the Lute-stop on a harpsichord? I think not, myself.

 

In terms of Bell-like, I suspect that you imply [though I may be wrong] a focussed quality on the pitch and finesse of each note. This is something a good harpsichord has as well.

 

As I said earlier on in this thread I am all for people playing the piano in Bach if there is no handy harpsichord, and that they do not try to persuades everyone else that Bach would have loved this transformation. We cannot know that, but we do know that Bach was certainly not haphazard in his choice of instruments. When he recast the same piece of music for new instrumental combinations - the parodies - then he often changed the tonic key, altered rhythms, added or removed notes from the melody line, sometimes added extra-contrapuntal lines - for the sake of the qualities of the new scored instruments - though only very rarely did the number of bars change or the important moments of modulation, which in any case are more architectural aspects.

 

No doubt that had a really attractive fortepiano have come to Bach's attention he would have composed music for it that was tailored to its specific qualities.

 

I am not saying that the piano cannot be played like a harpsichord.

 

Artur Schnabel used to play Bach on a piano like that, with very even dynamics, and a complete absence of voice leading in fugues and so on. The Gramophone Magazine critics of his HMV recordings made in London asked why Schnabel had not used a harpsichord in the first place?

 

So somehow the poor pianists is stuck somewhere between a rock and a hard place on this!

 

I was listening to the Violin Sonata BWV 1014 the other day with a harpsichord and gut-strung baroque violin. The harpsichord almost surreptitiously setting the scene, in very few notes, and achieving a serene quietness, such that when the first note of the violin emerges from the tracery of the harpsichord it was like a shaft of early morning sunlight through the mist and the branches of the pine trees around! Bach knew exactly what he was doing, and this scoring is as sonically delicious as any the great Debussy would come up with over a century later! It is simply luscious!

 

I'd say that the old instruments in this performance [+] bring out a sense of atmosphere that was indeed Bach's intention, and it is in part due to the very contrast of the sung violin entering with a warmth that is utterly beguiling for it emerging from the crystalline, quiet and gentle introduction of the harpsichord.

 

Now there is a point here. These two players knew what they were trying to achieve and managed it beautifully. But if the violinist had been one of those intense [loads of vibrato] modern [post-Heifetz] types, then the effect would have been lost, and if the harpsichord had been one of those aggressive Playel jobs, the magic would have evaporated fasted than the morning mist in the sun!

 

Equally, I simply don't think any piano could ever equal the suspect that the harpsichord brings in this performance.

 

ATB from George

 

[+] names to follow.

 

 

Dear George,

I thank you for such a nice post.  Purely logical and convincing.

 

PS: I am having anger management issues at the moment with this forum software.  Three times this morning I lost complete posts after a lot work and ideas including in this present response.  I've run out of time and cannot rebuild it from scratch but I can only briefly paraphrase...

 

I have to admit that in some things I am pretty set in my ways but what I like about having a rational discussion with like minded people is that one can be slowly be won over with continued words of wisdom along with a passionate sense of reason.  I admittedly was not a far way off course to begin with I think but I can clearly understand what I was maybe not willing to see previously.  This is the unexpected positive effect here that I am experiencing and I can not thank you enough George for your time and patience here.

 

I do still have a lot to learn though and look forward to that.

 

Best Regards,

Doug

 

 

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by EJS

Another oldie that has never been surpassed: Wieland Kuijken and Gustav Leonhardt on DHM. Sound quality is good for the time (mid 70s). Sparse, serious and totally dedicated. And paradoxically, very effective on an emotional level.

EJ

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by George J:

Bach Violin sonata, BWV 1014.

 

Luis Otavio Santos [haprsichord], Pieter-Jan Belder baroque violin]

 

On Brilliant Classics. Unfortunately 157 CDs!

 

But worth every penny of their cost of about £1 per CD.

 

ATB from George

 

Edit formalist post:

 

Equally, I simply don't think any piano could ever equal the suspense that the harpsichord brings in this performance.

 

ATB from George

 

[+] names to follow.

 

Thanks George,

I have this but never actually got around to listening to it yet.  Later today I will make it my priority.

 

Regards,

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by George J:

Dear Doug,

 

One of the really nice things about such a forum as this, is there is only one person I know well enough personally - A Cambridge Mus Doc. - with whom I could have such a discussion as this. While we may be coming at this from either end of the stick, at least we can have a discussion that is illuminating and to be honest - at least I hope so, certainly for me - interesting and something to learn from.

 

Thanks for the lovely thread.

 

ATB from George

I concur.  Thanks to you and everyone else here too for making this a good place to discuss music!

Doug

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Peet
Originally Posted by Bert Schurink:

Very interesting write up and I agree. It's about the art and not about what is intended or limit it to what is intended. Intended does also not exist as the composer didn't have other instruments at his disposal at that point in time. So my only two requirements remain:

1. Does it sound for me attractive on the instrument which it's executed on ?

2. Is the artist playing it with the maximum musical insight ?

 

if both are answered with yes, I would buy the piece.

Very well said.

Bach re-used lots of themes and ideas, transposed whole parts to other instruments and I think was probably a very practical man, using what was at his disposal at any given time.

 

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by Haim Ronen
Originally Posted by Bert Schurink:

Very interesting write up and I agree. It's about the art and not about what is intended or limit it to what is intended. Intended does also not exist as the composer didn't have other instruments at his disposal at that point in time. So my only two requirements remain:

1. Does it sound for me attractive on the instrument which it's executed on ?

2. Is the artist playing it with the maximum musical insight ?

 

if both are answered with yes, I would buy the piece.

Bert,

 

What was intended is the ORIGINAL ART. Any other embellishment or arrangement are fine as long as you know where they are coming from. With the proper perspective (of the original) you will probably appreciate them even more, not less.

 

Haim

Posted on: 02 November 2014 by George J
Originally Posted by Peet:
Originally Posted by Bert Schurink:

Very interesting write up and I agree. It's about the art and not about what is intended or limit it to what is intended. Intended does also not exist as the composer didn't have other instruments at his disposal at that point in time. So my only two requirements remain:

1. Does it sound for me attractive on the instrument which it's executed on ?

2. Is the artist playing it with the maximum musical insight ?

 

if both are answered with yes, I would buy the piece.

Very well said.

Bach re-used lots of themes and ideas, transposed whole parts to other instruments and I think was probably a very practical man, using what was at his disposal at any given time.

 

And always adjusted the lines to fit the new instruments available and intended. There was no arbitrary recasting without adjustment. Please avoid perpetuating myths.

 

When Bach reworked the works of Vivaldi, Marcello and others, the music was recomposed, just as his own parodies were new works, if based on the original harmonic ground plan ...

 

This does not give carte blanche to play Bach on any instruments that the performers wish, and then claim the result is better than original. 

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 08 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by naim_nymph:
 
“The sound of a harpsichord – two skeletons copulating on a tin roof in a thunderstorm”

Thomas Beecham

 

 

 

In my humble opinion the harpsichord sound is clear, crisp, and detailed against a grand piano's tonally lush warmth, rather like comparing black and white photographs to colour.

I'm rather fond of both.

Angela Hewitt's JSB complete solo keyboard recordings on 15 CDs is one of my favourite box-sets which i return to, and enjoy.

Used to wonder why the Aof was not included in this set until last month on release of the fairly new Angela version i am made aware again that the AoF on piano can be made to sound awkward and lost in tonal murk, some tunes really do benefit from a well tempered harpsichord's steely tone and ambiance, skeletons do sometimes come in very handy : )

 

Debs

Debs, as always, thanks for your valuable and apt input here.  I ran out of time last week and have limited time today but I wanted to respond to you.

 

...rather like comparing black and white photographs to colour.

I'm rather fond of both.

 

Me too!  My piano though is mostly black and white - does that confuse the point a wee bit? 

 

In photography I have almost left the colour side (being partially colour blind myself).  Probably 70% of what I do is B & W now over colour photos.

 

On the Art of Fugue, you have to admit though that it is seriously complicated and taxing (even in the best of times) to chew off 90 minutes of Fugue in a sitting.  On any instrument, the majority of it remains extremely difficult to comprehend but is undoubtedly a masterpiece whether we get it or not.

 

Regards,

Doug

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on: 08 November 2014 by George J

For the Art Of Fugue, there remain three performances that seem to me at least to get possibly close.

 

Helmut Walcha, 1956.

 

Munchinger with an simple orchestration [recorded by Decca] that keeps the lines clear and allows some less closed dynamic than the  organ ...

 

And MC Alain in 1974 on the organ. 

 

 

Three great performances that do not negate any others, but these are the ones I personally know and love ...

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 08 November 2014 by Florestan

Can you clarify the details of the second recommendation you give - 'Munching' ?  The Walcha I have and I will look for the Alain.

 

Thanks,

 

 

PS:  Sorry George - I get it now - Munchinger.  I guess I responded to your pre-edited response!

Posted on: 08 November 2014 by George J

Dear Doug,

 

It was last released on a two CD Decca release, and forgive Munching, for I meant Munchinger.

 

This is at least the start:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrrYGJ3jNeM

 

ATB from George

 

I hope that helps, but please be sure to go for the 1974 MC Alain, [on Erato, but probably deleted] as it is far more clear and serene than her later recording, which is less direct.

 

Posted on: 08 November 2014 by Florestan
Originally Posted by George J:

However stylishness is not arbitrary, and never has been. It is a framework of guiding rules and sensibilities that when followed allow a sense of what the music is about, and something of what was intended by the composer. this applies to all music that is played by people who are not the composer of the music concerned. It applies as much to the music of Lenard Bernstein as to the music of Johan Sebastian Bach, for two notable examples with surnames beginning with the letter "B" ...

 

Style is something learned, usually from an exalted master musician performer who chooses to teach as well as perform, such as Alfred Brendel, or August Wenzinger. It is based on musical sensibility and and understanding of stylish performance practice. The academic study of such issues is called Musicology and has a long and august history. It is a rigorous study that is far from being arbitrary. 

 

In reality, to ignore this sort of study is the really arbitrary position to take. 

 

____________

 

ATB from George

 

 

George, I would like to understand this aspect a style a little better.  I believe I understand your definition or intent which possibly reflects or refers to the manner or characteristics of a particular period or even specifically to a person even and how they perform (correct me if I'm wrong)?

 

The part I am having difficulty with is the part where you say style can be learned.  In one sense I agree.  Through expert opinion we can learn certain ways of the past and how what they did fits into the cultural context of the time and we try to respect this.  But what about differences in opinion.  Not all experts in this field agree on every point?  Nevertheless though, we can learn from the given received knowledge of our current present day and follow or try our best to faithfully reenact historical styles.

 

When you think of style in the unique sense of how every individual is created and responds, here, I don't believe this can be taught.  Alfred Brendel was largely self taught I believe.  Even if someone tried to teach him though in the end Alfred Brendel is Alfred Brendel.  He has his own unique style that no one no matter how hard they try can replicate him.  Like Bach, Brendel was born with special gifts and that they pursued seriously a career that matched their gifts they excelled.  Had either of these gentlemen tried to become doctors or herdsmen they likely would have failed miserably in these fields.

 

Regards,

Doug 

 

Posted on: 08 November 2014 by George J

Dear Doug,

 

Alfred Brendel is genius of the piano keyboard, but one cannot ignore the simple fact that he sat agoge at the feet of Edwin Fischer, whom he does mention as an influence. No doubt that Brendel was no stereotype Edwin Fischer, but the influence is is clear, Klemperer learned from Mahler and Monteux learned from the orchestral leader of Berlioz - Colonne,

 

thus style passes the generations,

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 08 November 2014 by Florestan

Dear George,

Exactly, I agree and I like that you used the word "influence" as it is very fitting.  In the end though, a listener would never confuse Edwin Fischer's playing with that Alfred Brendel despite his relationship and respect he had for Fischer.

Regards,

Doug