Your Preferred Bach Pianist

[Josquin des Prez]

Playing Bach on a piano is like playing rock music on an acoustic guitar. It may not sound bad, but something is definitely amiss.

[Josquin des Prez]

the piano has just got more going for it

Which is actually an impediment.

[Josquin des Prez]

What a stupid analogy ... doesnt make any sense, see what happens when you be yourself for 2 seconds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bd_70ZI9hs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScvOrerGVu4&feature=related

This prelude is supposed to be an Italian concerto. I understand that Jando isn't the greatest of pianists, but under his hands this prelude sounds anything but a concerto. The harpsichord has more energy, a fuller sound, a clearer texture and more staying power. This doesn't mean you can't do the same thing with a piano (Feltsman recordings of the solo keyboard concertos come to mind), but the instrument just isn't a match for the harpsichord.

I'll take Gould's words over yours, no offence .. at least he has backed it up.

Yes, he backed it up by spending years trying to make his piano sound like an harpsichord, which made everything he played suck except for Bach.

[Bulldog]

It is tho .. the piano has just got more going for it, it doesnt take a whole lot to hear & realize this ... and great pianists have shown it to be the case aswell, that's why it's more loved, known and heard playing Bach & otherwise.

I don't agree with you or Josquin.  Neither of you are really appreciative of the advantages that each type of instrument brings to Bach's music.  I just can't understand your attitudes.

[Josquin des Prez]

Once again, I'll repeat that I feel it's all on the performer.

True, but i still think the harpsichord is a better suited instrument. Observe this example for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fAg4BwjCPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFLB5Eo5SfA

Here we have Feltsman, a pianist i actually like, and Pinnock, whom i never particularly cared for. And still, the power of the instrument is such that i have to actually put greater effort in order to enjoy the same performance by Vladimir Feltsman. The harpsichord has this underlying pulse, this firm dynamic force that you can actually feel in your stomach, always moving forward, like a bolt of energy. The piano is more intimate, but it doesn't have this driving element to it. It almost feels cold, intellectual. And the piece certainly doesn't feel like a dance, as it should. Ultimately, i'd probably still pick the Feltsman merely because i like his performance better, but give me an harpischord played by an equally skilled performer (such as Scott Ross) any day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIAf9bBvieY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BywaOxQna6E&feature=related

The harpsichord just has a greater capacity for pathos, at least for me. The Gould is of course great in its own fashion, but i think he sort of ruins it in the fugato. I don't understand why he as to play it so bloody fast. Its remarkable that he doesn't lose any of the detail, but still...

[Bulldog]

True, but i still think the harpsichord is a better suited instrument. Observe this example for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fAg4BwjCPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFLB5Eo5SfA

Here we have Feltsman, a pianist i actually like, and Pinnock, whom i never particularly cared for. And still, the power of the instrument is such that i have to actually put greater effort in order to enjoy the same performance by Vladimir Feltsman. The harpsichord has this underlying pulse, this firm dynamic force that you can actually feel in your stomach, always moving forward, like a bolt of energy. The piano is more intimate, but it doesn't have this driving element to it. It almost feels cold, intellectual. And the piece certainly doesn't feel like a dance, as it should. Ultimately, i'd probably still pick the Feltsman merely because i like his performance better, but give me an harpischord played by an equally skilled performer (such as Scott Ross) any day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIAf9bBvieY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BywaOxQna6E&feature=related

The harpsichord just has a greater capacity for pathos, at least for me. The Gould is of course great in its own fashion, but i think he sort of ruins it in the fugato. I don't understand why he as to play it so bloody fast. Its remarkable that he doesn't lose any of the detail, but still...

Thanks for the videos.  Of the four, I thought that Feltsman really missed the mark; there was much expression on his face, but it didn't travel to his fingers.

As for Gould, he's always among the fastest guns in town, but the main news is his fantastic Allemande.

Anyways, I not only observed, I also listened.  Let's look at Feltsman again.  If he was playing a harpsichord, his Sarabande would still suck. 

So I end up feeling the same as before listening to the videos.  I'm a keyboard guy, loving both Bach on piano and harpsichord/clavichord/fortepiano.  If I could only have one type of instrument for Bach, I'd give the harpsichord a slight advantage.  If I had to live with the performances of only one keyboardist, it would be the pianist Rosalyn Tureck.

Personally, I'd much rather talk about performing Bach's repeats than the instrumentation.  I think I started a thread on it a couple of months ago, but it sure wasn't a popular topic.

[Josquin des Prez]

Of the four, I thought that Feltsman really missed the mark;

He did. His recording of the Partitas are pretty bizarre, i'm not sure what he was trying to do there. His ornamentation is really wierd. There is an underlying logic in there, and it isn't all that bad once you get used to it. It just isn't Bach. In a way, it really underscores that the idea that having a "wider range of options" is a double edged sword.

Still better then the metronomic bore that is Pinnock, IMHO anyway. Feltsman is great in the WTC and especially in the concertos for solo keyboard. His performance of the Italian concerto in particular is really something to behold. Its a matter of fact, he started sucking once he got his head shaved. Maybe there's a connection.

[Holden]

I missed one. Going through my Bach keyboard CDs I found Gavrilov's concertos so I'll add him to the list.

BTW, why does just about every HIP baroque fan assume that the harpsichord was the only keyboard vehicle of the time? A little research would suggest otherwise, especially in Bach's case.

Having played the harpsichord and the pipe organ I appreciate how Bach's music can be moved from one instrument to another, including the the pianoforte and various combinations of instruments without detracting from the music itself.

[Bulldog]

BTW, why does just about every HIP baroque fan assume that the harpsichord was the only keyboard vehicle of the time?

I don't believe that most HIP baroque fans make that assumption at all.  Why do you think it true?

[prémont]

BTW, why does just about every HIP baroque fan assume that the harpsichord was the only keyboard vehicle of the time? A little research would suggest otherwise, especially in Bach's case.

I do not understand your point. Bach only knew early fortepianos of the Silbermann kind (other than clavichords, harpsichords and organs - of course) and only in the later part of his life, and they had a very crisp sound not quite unsimilar the sound of a contemporary German harpsichord, but very unlike the dull and somewhat percussive sound of a modern Steinway. I do not deny, that a skilled fortepianist can make some of Bach´s later keyboard work on a properly restored Silbermann fortepiano (compare the parts of the WTC recorded by Robert Levin, Daniel Chorzempa and Lorenzo Ghielmi), but to conclude, that the existence of fortepianos in Bachs time naturally authorizes the use of a completely different instrument (Steinway) for his works is a tad to easy.

The fact is, as I hinted at above, that the pianists, who want to play Bach on modern piano (and the listeners who want to hear this), prefer a romanticised Bach - if they did not, there would be no point in using the piano.

[DavidW]

BTW, why does just about every HIP baroque fan assume that the harpsichord was the only keyboard vehicle of the time?

Where did this come from?   I don't think that any of them think that.  But I do think (not speaking for them though, I might be simply ignorant) that between harpsichord, clavichord and organ you pretty much have it covered.

You and Karl are both proponents of the play Bach on anything, it's all good... but really it's hard for me to imagine that all of those times that he played the clavichord, harpsichord or organ he would then walk away to compose something without the sound of any one of those echoing in his mind.  And there have been compelling arguments made that his vocal works (like his cantatas) were written with the limitations of the actual performers in mind.  I just find it difficult to accept the thesis that Bach puts no thought into the timbre and capabilities of the instruments that he is writing for, and should be played on anything.

[Bulldog]

No ... the piano isn't used to 'romanticise' Bach. Piano usage in Bach or otherwise... doesn't automatically = romantic. It's used because it offers the performer a much wider palette & control to the be musical and creative, and in Bach's case, the instrument is perfectly suited to 'explore the intricacies' of his polyphonic style to a greater extent, as truly great musicians like Gould have claimed & proved.

I'd bet that most artists who play Bach on the piano do it because that's the instrument they grew up with and know how to play.  Piano players play Bach on the piano.

[Josquin des Prez]

and you're contradicting and even unsure of yourself too.

Contradicting how? You can do the same thing on a piano, but with the harpsichord its just better/more natural. And polyphony comes out much easier on an harpsichord as well, precisely because there's no pesky dynamics messing with the consistency of each polyphonic line.

[Josquin des Prez]

Proof that some pianists tend to Romanticize Bach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOog0239N8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugSXVymv6b8&feature=fvw

For the record, just because i prefer Bach on the harpsichord does not mean i'm completely indifferent to the piano, and i do like what Richter does here. But to me, it just isn't what Bach probably intended.

[Bulldog]

Proof that some pianists tend to Romanticize Bach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOog0239N8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugSXVymv6b8&feature=fvw

For the record, just because i prefer Bach on the harpsichord does not mean i'm completely indifferent to the piano, and i do like what Richter does here. But to me, it just isn't what Bach probably intended.

Ah, Bach's intent - good luck with that one.  There are times when I'm nut sure of my own intent, never mind the intent of a German composer three hundred years ago.

[Josquin des Prez]

well all these instruments are related being keyboard instruments, sharing the age old keyboard layout...but the modern keyboard is the dominate, better & more musically versatile instrument. If it weren't i suppose the harpsichord would still be at the forefront? lol

Spurious argument. Organs too are no longer the dominant keyboard instrument, but can you imagine what organ music would sound like on a piano?

[prémont]

get real ...the harpsichord has a narrow and limited availability, usage, range and repetoire (same applies to the Organ), the modern piano has incredible versatility and range and can and has been used to handle all sorts of contrapuntal & polyphonic music down thru the ages up to modern times...it can easily handle all the old stuff plus everything that the 20th & 21st century has had to offer the instrument, art music or otherwise ...and  it can even be used to play 'naked' bare bones & revealing reductions/transcriptions of orchestral & symphonic music on top of this and yes, even Bach organ pieces.

Ooh, now I understand. It is all about evolution. Good to know from a reliable source.

[prémont]

It about range, versatility and practicality for musicians ... something that the historically accurate cultists who are trapped in their own little time warp fail to understand ... that yes, you can play the old stuff but so much more as well.

Do not get me wrong. I am very much a pianophile,- when it is about piano music.

[prémont]

Which includes Bach of course, you sound more like a pedant? I could be wrong but ...

Pedant?? Because I prefer an unromanticised Bach???

[Marc]

AFAIK, the 'grand piano' is an instrument that was wanted by the romantic epoch and its artists, for its capability to create a larger sound, suited for creating larger dynamic differences, suited for larger concert halls et cetera.

If a 'grand piano' player is trying to force the instrument to make it sound smaller, with a more direct and short way of articulation and phrasing, the result sounds ofter rather artificial, IMO.

So, if you want to play Bach on a 'grand piano', I think the artist should realize that he's playing on a different instrument than Bach had in mind, and not wilfully try to make it sound like an early 18th century instrument.

Of course a modern non-romantic composer can use this instrument. Why not?
But he/she will certainly be aware of the possibilities of the instrument, and use it in a proper way for his/her piece. Bach could not do that, because he did not know this instrument.

To me, 'good' interpretations of Bach on a 'grand piano' have to sound grander and larger and with more dynamic differences than Bach could have possibly thought of if a keyboard instrument was concerned (other than the organ). It's not such a silly or pedant thing to call that 'more romantic'. But IMHO, it's the best way to play Bach on a piano. In most cases, as I suggested before, a so called semi-HIP interpretation on a piano sounds artificial. If you want to try to recreate a baroque-Bach, then it's a good idea to use a harpsichord, clavichord or another keyboard instrument of his time. If you want to create a Bach mixed with your own ideas and possibilities of your own time, then a piano is a good instrument to use. It will be less Bach, but this doesn't necessarily mean a lesser Bach (depending on the interpeter, and on the preferences of the listener).