JS Bach

[rp314]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0zaqxdtGsk

[Turello]

@fmr: I thought that was the first because I was in tape\cassett format... So I confused A-side with B-side...

[spaceman]

Gould recordings may have been revolutionary when he did them, but were way overpassed by the recordings made in harpsichord, by Leonhardt and others. It's especially in the ornamentation, and in the way the tempi are played, that we can see the big differences. And this music sounds much better in harpsichord, IMO (it was for it that it was written, after all). Gould had a great intuition about how this music should be played, but he lacked the musicological knowledge that the later researches in baroque interpretation allowed.

I think there were very few people with more musicological knowledge than Gould. He simply wasn't into the ridiculous notion that this music should only be played in one specific way, like, completely stuck in the past, for instance.

I also quite disagree that it sounds better on the harpsichord.

Bach's music is first and foremost abstract music. He usually composed without any specific sonority in mind. Some works simply ended up in certain keys and sonorities because at some point, they had to be played on an instrument. These work, as has been shown many many times, easily translate to other instruments. Bach himself constantly transposed between instruments and even often recycled works, changing two part harmonies to three or four parts, changing the instrumentation completely, etc.

The harpsichord has a narrow sonic range and an even narrower range of expression compared to a modern instrument like the piano. You simply can't bring out the same level of counterpoint on the harpsichord as you can on a piano. So I can't see how it could possible make these amazing works sound better?

Listen to the C# minor fugue of Book 1 of the Well-Tempered, for instance. Listen to it on harpsichord first, and then played by Tureck or Richter on piano. Anyone who thinks the harpsichord does a better job there has strange ideas about music :p

Actually, I recommend to listen to Bach played on the harpsichord, by Leonhardt, Koopman, Pinnock, etc., to fully understand what he wrote. In the piano, my favourite is András Schiff.

Oh, and playing the Art of Fugue in the piano is a nonsense. Bach didn't left any indications about which instrument or instruments it would be played (some even suggest that it wasn't meant to be played, but is mainly a theoretical work, like the Musical Offering, and the Well Tempered Clavier are, to some extent), but the writing suggests an organ, or an ensemble of equal instruments, like strings. A piano or an harpsichord doesn't pay justice to the wonderful craftmanship of the polyphonic writing.

You obviously haven't heard a craftsman play it correctly on a piano then! As I said earlier, Bach didn't put a specific instrument on it, because that's not how he composed anyway. Any different instrumentation will bring something else to the music. There's no good or bad way to arrange this. In the end, what speaks to you is subjective of course, and for me, I prefer the expression of the piano over the harpsichord any day!

[fmr]

Gould recordings may have been revolutionary when he did them, but were way overpassed by the recordings made in harpsichord, by Leonhardt and others. It's especially in the ornamentation, and in the way the tempi are played, that we can see the big differences. And this music sounds much better in harpsichord, IMO (it was for it that it was written, after all). Gould had a great intuition about how this music should be played, but he lacked the musicological knowledge that the later researches in baroque interpretation allowed

I think there were very few people with more musicological knowledge than Gould. He simply wasn't into the ridiculous notion that this music should only be played in one specific way, like, completely stuck in the past, for instance.

Gould may had some musicological knowledge (he had to, otherwise he couldn't come to the interpretations he recorded), but musicology came a long way ever since, and the advancements made in the way old music (especially renaissance and baroque music) was intended to and should be played were astonishing. People like Leonhardt, Harnoncourt, Bruggen, Koopman, the Bilsma brothers, Pinnock, Savall, etc., created an entirely new school of interpretation of baroque music, that changed the way barque was looked and listened forever.

I also quite disagree that it sounds better on the harpsichord.

Fine, let's agree on disagree, then

Bach's music is first and foremost abstract music. He usually composed without any specific sonority in mind. Some works simply ended up in certain keys and sonorities because at some point, they had to be played on an instrument. These work, as has been shown many many times, easily translate to other instruments. Bach himself constantly transposed between instruments and even often recycled works, changing two part harmonies to three or four parts, changing the instrumentation completely, etc.

How can you say that? That's absurd. I could mention a hundred reasons why this wasn't true. And I defy you to quote a single source that say Bach didn't think in terms of the instrument he was writing for. It's a fact that his music is easily adapted to other instruments and sonorities but so is Handel's, or Vivaldi's, and would be more true for the music of Monteverdi, or the music of the renaissance polyphonists. That has to do with the compositional style.
It is also true that Bach did transcriptions (that's the correct word, not "transpositions"), but he also did that from Vivaldi, Albinoni and other composers. And when he did that, he always made some adaptations, to suit the music to the instrument it was supposed to be played on. This is quite notorious in the transcriptions of the Vivaldi concertos he did for the organ. And he did the same when he reused his own material in several pieces. As a master of variation, it was ver easy for Bach to vary the musical material, and adapt it to different instruments and different forms, like the concerto, the choral prelude, the cantata, or the solo keyboard piece. However, if you take a look to the preludes and fugues from the Well Tempered Clavier (which were written for the harpsichord), and preludes and fugues written for the organ, you will notice many differences in style, in spite of both being preludes and fugues. The only pieces that are "abstract" (in the meaning that he didn't say for which instrument they were written) are the Art of Fugue and the Musical Offering.

The harpsichord has a narrow sonic range and an even narrower range of expression compared to a modern instrument like the piano. You simply can't bring out the same level of counterpoint on the harpsichord as you can on a piano. So I can't see how it could possible make these amazing works sound better?

It's true that the harpsichord "has a narrow sonic range and an even narrower range of expression compared to a modern instrument like the piano". Yet, it was that narrow instrument that Bach used, and the compositions were thought and created for it. And you are wrong when you say you "can't bring out the same level of counterpoint on the harpsichord as you can on a piano". You can achieve a high degree of expressiveness, you just have to use a different way to reach it. Different instruments require different techniques. And the piano certainly can't give a high level of counterpoint either. That's why I said it's absurd to play the Art of Fugue on a piano. Although not expressed, that writing is very much thought for the organ, or for an ensemble of instruments of the same family, like a string orchestra.

Actually, I recommend to listen to Bach played on the harpsichord, by Leonhardt, Koopman, Pinnock, etc., to fully understand what he wrote. In the piano, my favourite is András Schiff.
Oh, and playing the Art of Fugue in the piano is a nonsense. Bach didn't left any indications about which instrument or instruments it would be played (some even suggest that it wasn't meant to be played, but is mainly a theoretical work, like the Musical Offering, and the Well Tempered Clavier are, to some extent), but the writing suggests an organ, or an ensemble of equal instruments, like strings. A piano or an harpsichord doesn't pay justice to the wonderful craftsmanship of the polyphonic writing.

You obviously haven't heard a craftsman play it correctly on a piano then! As I said earlier, Bach didn't put a specific instrument on it, because that's not how he composed anyway. Any different instrumentation will bring something else to the music. There's no good or bad way to arrange this. In the end, what speaks to you is subjective of course, and for me, I prefer the expression of the piano over the harpsichord any day!

I listened and have recordings of Bach on piano and harpsichord. I thought as you do many years ago, but then I started studying, and listening to the music played by the "new old music" masters. At first, I found those interpretations strange, and even kind of disgusting. Then, I started to realize that they actually made sense, and that Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and others sounded much more coherent. Suddenly, all those ornaments that many interpreters just played wrong, started to fit right in the music. The tempi started to make sense. The whole sonorities gained new balance. It was like discovering a new world. I don't say thjat Bach shouldn't be played on the piano. Like I said, I like the way András Schiff plays. And I like the way Gould plays. He was the first (to my knowledge) to openly value articulation more than weight, for example, a technique that comes from the harpsichord. He even got his piano changed to allow a faster articulation. Rosalyn Tureck was known to had a great influence on him too, and she was also a great Bach expert.
But, as I said, all this knowledge, although important, was a long way behind what was achieved by the interpreters of the "new old music".

[Sampleconstruct]

While the experts argue I can only say, that I would never have played "Das Wohltemperierte Klavier" on a harpsichord because I simply hate it's typewriterish sound and can't listen to it more than 2 minutes, whereas playing this beautiful and wondrous music on a piano during my adolescence opened so many doors and created an invaluable knowledge and intuition for harmonies and counterpoint.

[rp314]

You-tube glitch...

[Mister Natural]

I love Spaceman's & fmr's discussion on the correct instrument to reference the master's pieces. I can tell you that he was an organist in his church as his profession. His job was an organist.
I believe the best way to approach an understanding of Bach is through the original synthesizer : the organ.
submitted for your approval : Fugue in Am #543
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OgAmsGxYYM
peace

[herodotus]

I am kind of old fashioned. I am a big fan of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-hXeh3Q8H4

And especially of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cLALT09Y0M

That is some otherworldly shit.

[spaceman]

I love Spaceman's & fmr's discussion on the correct instrument to reference the master's pieces. I can tell you that he was an organist in his church as his profession. His job was an organist.
I believe the best way to approach an understanding of Bach is through the original synthesizer : the organ.

Well, to be more precise, he was an organist at some point in Weimer, in Kothen he was Kapellmeister and in Leipzig he was Cantor, and he composed primarily on the harpsichord. So I would approach only his works marked for organ as organ pieces, and not the rest :p

[spaceman]

@ fmr - I think we're interpreting the term "abstract" a bit differently. What I mean by it is that his compositions make sense on their own outside of the restrictions of a particular instrument, even if they were composed for a particular instrument. It's true that Bach was not the only one doing this, but it certainly applies to Bach more than any other composer.

[2ZrgE]

While the experts argue I can only say, that I would never have played "Das Wohltemperierte Klavier" on a harpsichord because I simply hate it's typewriterish sound and can't listen to it more than 2 minutes, whereas playing this beautiful and wondrous music on a piano during my adolescence opened so many doors and created an invaluable knowledge and intuition for harmonies and counterpoint.

Agree on that. Who cares in which way Bach is "interpreted right" as long as the interpretation sounds good to my ears? And a piano sounds much better than a harpsichord. (I'm sure Bach would have preferred the piano as well.)

Of course the guardians of the pure Bach religion will instantly prove to you that your way of listening is wrong and cannot be pleasing at all... Or that you just have not the intellectual capability to realize the divine subtleties of his work (wich you ony can appreciate after having listened to thousands of records / having a PhD in musicology...)

(I mostly prefer Gould when it comes to Bachs keyboard works, but not all of his ridiculous tempi and definitively not his mumbling....)

[spaceman]

I can see where fmr is coming from.

Listening to Bach on the harpsichord versus the piano, or any original baroque instrumentation and ornamentation versus modern instruments and modern playing, it summons up a different atmosphere and I can imagine people preferring that.

For me, it simply transports me to that era, in the same way as contemplating a nice antique object does. It's a nice experience for what it is, but it doesn't mean that it therefor improves the music as well. For that, only the notes are important and how they are expressed, and that's where I find the piano endlessly more enjoyable than a harpsichord.

[2ZrgE]

"Then, I started to realize that they actually made sense, and that Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and others sounded much more coherent. Suddenly, all those ornaments that many interpreters just played wrong, started to fit right in the music."

That's not an expression of preference, but of superiority. With Bach of course it's much easier to prove one's cultural elitism that with Mozart e.g.

[bharris22]

Edit:

It seems that I recall hearing a portion some largo piece that I really really liked performed by a violinist, but don't for the life of me know what it was beyond that it was a Bach piece. Anyways I'll hunt it down later and google what it's from.

/end edit

[yt link]

It's kind of like but is it supposed to be really relaxing to just kind of have there or is that just me? The part at 4:50, 9:00 and 9:20 (with the rises) really caught my attention but overall for me it's more like something that you passively listen to while your mind is on other things. Or am I doing this wrong and I'm supposed to be actively listening to it with my full attention? It could just be that growing up I heard a lot of classical being played in the house so maybe on a subconcious level I see most classical as background music.

I mean, I feel like I should think "wow that was great!" yet all I feel is that it's pleasant and relaxing. Nothing about it screams at me to replay it and I don't get why.

I would very highly recommend Glenn Gould playing the Goldberg Variations (I prefer the earlier version from the 1950's) as a gateway drug to both Bach and Gould.

This is the first video I could find, no idea how familiar you are with this CD but it's what I just started playing.

http://youtu.be/N2YMSt3yfko?t=1s

This is the 1981 (later) recording - I have both the CD and the DVD from where this video was taken. Personally, I prefer the 1955 recording here: http://www.amazon.com/Goldberg-Variatio ... Gould+1955. Best $10 you will ever spend, but as this thread shows, opinions on Bach and his interpreters vary widely .

[spaceman]

The 1955 recording is a series of brilliantly played variations.

But the 1981 recording, for me, is superior, because Gould has managed, for the first time ever in my opinion, to ingeniously group those 30 variations together to form one coherent unit. He has added so much more dimension and depth to the work, much more than anyone else had ever achieved before or since. I also prefer his tempi on it.

For that reason, and the fact that the Goldberg is a monumental musical work anyway, it's possibly the greatest recording ever made.