Bach on Piano?

[Sammy]

True up to a point, the musician also has to somehow get around the issues of recording it well .. for some odd reason the harpsichord rarely sounds good on recordings.

I find that it generally sounds very good on recordings.  I guess you just don't like the instrument.

[jochanaan]

It's an easy answer to say "the performance is all that matters."  But remember, always, that neither the Bachs nor the Scarlattis nor Couperin nor any other Baroque composer wrote their music for an instrument that hadn't yet been developed into its modern form.  Therefore, as beautiful as Bach etc. can be when played on piano, it's in essence a transcription.

J.S. Bach once tried out a fortepiano and didn't much care for it.  OTOH, his son Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach was one of his generation's premier fortepianists.

[jochanaan]

Re recordings: What usually doesn't come across on recordings is the fact that period instruments produce considerably less sound than modern ones.  So for those of you who "get headaches" listening to recordings of period instruments, maybe you should try to hear a live performance (if you can).

[Wakefield]

I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is acceptable for Bach (less so for Scarlatti).

I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is more than acceptable for Scarlatti (less so for Bach).

There are strong historical reasons to think that Scarlatti was a lot more familiar and interested in fortepianos than Bach.

I think these reasons are well explained and demonstrated in a beautiful disk entitled "Una nuova inventione per Maria Barbara" (Ambronay), played on a Cristofori pianoforte by Aline Zylberajch.

That said, several times I have found Scarlatti sounds excellent on modern piano. 

[jochanaan]

...There are strong historical reasons to think that Scarlatti was a lot more familiar and interested in fortepianos than Bach...

True, and an excellent point.  But the fortepiano of Scarlatti's and Bach's time was little like a modern Steinway or Boesendorfer.

[EigenUser]

Piano. No contest.

As long as there is no use of the pedal and very little use of dynamics. I like Bach played on piano simply because I prefer the piano's sound over the harpsichord's, but I don't like it when performers see no dynamic markings as an opportunity to fill in whatever they want. Just a preference, though.

[Karl Henning]

True, and an excellent point.  But the fortepiano of Scarlatti's and Bach's time was little like a modern Steinway or Boesendorfer.

No, indeed.

I mean, true, indeed.

[Karl Henning]

As long as there is no use of the pedal and very little use of dynamics. I like Bach played on piano simply because I prefer the piano's sound over the harpsichord's, but I don't like it when performers see no dynamic markings as an opportunity to fill in whatever they want. Just a preference, though.

Nothing wrong with that.  And, as I was explaining another time, while at present I can listen to harpsichord music for hours with enjoyment, it was a while before I attained this state . . . .

[Karl Henning]

I prefer the harpsichord, but piano is more than acceptable for Scarlatti (less so for Bach).

I should be interested in your further opinion here.

[Pat B]

It's an easy answer to say "the performance is all that matters."  But remember, always, that neither the Bachs nor the Scarlattis nor Couperin nor any other Baroque composer wrote their music for an instrument that hadn't yet been developed into its modern form.  Therefore, as beautiful as Bach etc. can be when played on piano, it's in essence a transcription.

Fine, but should "transcription" be such a naughty word? AFAIK it wasn't in Bach's time.

Most of my Bach keyboard collection is on period instruments, but if somebody wants to play it on piano or Moog or electric guitar or some instrument I've never heard of, then I'm not going to tell them not to.

[Karl Henning]

Fine, but should "transcription" be such a naughty word? AFAIK it wasn't in Bach's time.

I don't think jo was decrying transcription, only endorsing an awareness.

Like any musical activity, a transcription can be well done/considered or poorly done/considered.  (And sometimes, the difference will be a matter of taste.)

Come to think on it, it may be that the latest Bach I listened to, was in transcription (by either Liszt or Busoni).

[Karl Henning]

Most of my Bach keyboard collection is on period instruments, but if somebody wants to play it on piano or Moog or electric guitar or some instrument I've never heard of, then I'm not going to tell them not to.

You see, I think jo's post was a caution that, if we hear Bach realized on an electric guitar, we might guard against the reaction, Oh, if only this were played on a piano, the way Bach meant it . . . .

[kishnevi]

I don't mind the instrument at all, it just never really sounds good on recordings; can you give me an example of a recording which illustrates "very good" recorded sound. Thanks.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'not sounding good'?

There are a number of concerto recordings in which the harpsichord is overwhelmed by an orchestra when it shouldn't be, but offhand I can't think of any solo harpsichord recording I disliked because of the sonics (as opposed to some I don't like because of how the musician plays the music).  My baseline for "sounding good" amounts to 'sounds like a harpsichord'.  Perhaps your baseline differs from mine?

[North Star]

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'not sounding good'?

There are a number of concerto recordings in which the harpsichord is overwhelmed by an orchestra when it shouldn't be

And lots of recordings where the harpsichord overwhelms the orchestra, which it certainly shouldn't do, too.

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'not sounding good'?

There are a number of concerto recordings in which the harpsichord is overwhelmed by an orchestra when it shouldn't be, but offhand I can't think of any solo harpsichord recording I disliked because of the sonics (as opposed to some I don't like because of how the musician plays the music).  My baseline for "sounding good" amounts to 'sounds like a harpsichord'.  Perhaps your baseline differs from mine?

Another thing (and, as far as I am concerned, another reason to consider a slight preference for the harpsichord), there are a great many different types of harpsichord, many of them with quite distinct voices.  In comparison (and I speak as one who loves the piano lit, as well) the piano is a bit . . . monochrome.

Thus, the very idea of asserting that the harpsichord never sounds good in recording is . . . under-informed, shall we say.

[bwv 1080]

Can you please name me one recording where the sound is "very good" in your estimation then. Thanks.

Continuum sounds great on this disc


should we include chamber and orchestral music as well? Do we need a Steinway for the continuo for the Brandenburg Concertos or should the grand piano just be used for the solo in the 5th concerto?

[Pat B]

I don't think jo was decrying transcription, only endorsing an awareness.

Like any musical activity, a transcription can be well done/considered or poorly done/considered.  (And sometimes, the difference will be a matter of taste.)

Okay, maybe I misinterpreted his intent. I do think the word "transcription" carries a bit of a stigma. Your second paragraph is very true.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yea .. the piano has a richer sound on all fronts, good for exploring the intricacies of that unparalleled rich polyphony and a wider way .. and can be recorded very well, worlds apart from the thin, antiquated, monotonous and tinny sound of the harpsichord.

Well, 'Duh!' 

Thank you, Mr. Obvious!   

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I prefer Bach on piano and Scarlatti on harpsichord for these reasons:

1. A piano is a lot easier to listen to for extended periods, so it suits Bach's long multi-movement works better. Scarlatti specialized in tiny bite-sized sonatas, which are easier to digest on the harpsichord.

2. Harpsichord suits the character of Scarlatti much better. Harpsichords can sound amazingly like guitars, fully bringing out the Spanish aspect. They are also more percussive and rhythmically incisive.

[kishnevi]

Yea .. the piano has a richer sound on all fronts, good for exploring the intricacies of that unparalleled rich polyphony and a wider way .. and can be recorded very well, worlds apart from the thin, antiquated, monotonous and tinny sound of the harpsichord.

So you do not like the harpsichord, that is all.