Bach on Piano?

[Karl Henning]

I am happy to report that the relationship between myself and the realm of the harpsichord is rapidly improving (especially after all the great recommendations here on GMG). I am actually starting to enjoy Baumont's Couperin quite a bit at this point. It is an intriguing soundscape.

Splendid!

[Karl Henning]

Oh I see it's that time of the year again, time for PI vs MI!  After that we can argue over atonality!

As long as I get First Honk! 

[Ken B]

I am happy to report that the relationship between myself and the realm of the harpsichord is rapidly improving (especially after all the great recommendations here on GMG). I am actually starting to enjoy Baumont's Couperin quite a bit at this point. It is an intriguing soundscape. At the same time I take time to enjoy different piano renditions as well.  The recent CPE Bach recordings by Markovina have been a delight!

[asin] B000OCZ7WK[/asin]

Hey! I recommended that. MUCH better than the Brilliant set.

[Karl Henning]

Hey! I recommended that.

So we did, so we did . . . .

[prémont]

Not unexpected I much prefer harpsichord to modern piano, at least when it is about  music written for harpsichord. I find the following three points very important.

1) The brilliant sound rich of partials of the harpsichord suits IMO Bach´s music much better than the dull sound of modern piano.

2) The piano mechanism has got a slower action than the harpsichord mechanism and the musician has got a rather indirect contact with the piano strings compared to rather direct contact to the harpsichord strings. This is the reason why it is impossible to articulate equally precise and clear on a piano as on a harpsichord. It is well known, that clear and expressive articulation is one of the most inmportant elements of performance of baroque music.

3) Most , if not all, pianos are equally tuned, and the musicologists now agree that this was far from Bach´s favoured tuning. In modified meantone tuning the music also sounds more brilliant and sonorous, because the partials are in better harmony. The more I listen to Bach played in equal tuning, the less I like the tuning, which actually is basically out of tune.

To call Bach-playing on piano a sacrilege is going a bit too far I think, and I understand well, why many pianists also want to play Bach. The good news is that I am free to ignore them.

[prémont]

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.

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

This depends upon which sonatas we are talking about. The piano can not do justice to the much represented type with arpeggio effects and cluster chords.

[jochanaan]

As long as I get First Honk! 

Honk that mouthpiece!*squawk squawk*

[jochanaan]

...1) The brilliant sound rich of partials of the harpsichord suits IMO Bach´s music much better than the dull sound of modern piano.

True.  You get a lot more of the really high frequencies--which, I suspect, is what irritates many listeners.  Again I suggest hearing a live performance, in which the total sound level is much lower than you might expect and therefore the high frequencies aren't as irritating...

2) The piano mechanism has got a slower action than the harpsichord mechanism and the musician has got a rather indirect contact with the piano strings compared to rather direct contact to the harpsichord strings. This is the reason why it is impossible to articulate equally precise and clear on a piano as on a harpsichord. It is well known, that clear and expressive articulation is one of the most inmportant elements of performance of baroque music.

And yet lots of pianists, historical and modern, can do brilliant, clear articulation and incredibly fast passagework; think Rachmaninoff playing his own concerti...

3) Most , if not all, pianos are equally tuned, and the musicologists now agree that this was far from Bach´s favoured tuning. In modified meantone tuning the music also sounds more brilliant and sonorous, because the partials are in better harmony. The more I listen to Bach played in equal tuning, the less I like the tuning, which actually is basically out of tune....

Tuning temperament is as much an art as a science.  As a piano tuner, I've not yet been asked to use a mean-tone temperament, but it's not out of possibility--and then I'd have to read up and practice up on historical temperaments! Not that I expect it to require much practice; it's easier to hear pure intervals than to count beats on tempered ones...

[jochanaan]

"Moot points," James?  Anything that affects the sound of the music is entirely pertinent, since music is sound.

[Ken B]

music is sound.

James reverses that.

[jochanaan]

James reverses that.

"Music is sound, sound music--that is all/Ye know on GMG, and all ye need to know." (Apologies to John Keats.)

[Sammy]

Truly moot points, that thus have little meaning, especially considering everything that has been done with this music artistically & successfully since, and with great merit. But even you admit that it is not the instrument that is important, it is the musician. You shouldn't let your obsession with historical accuracy contradict this important position.

And while I'm at it .. what in your estimation is a "very good" BACH harpsichord recording. Again, I personally do not mind the instrument and am open, but there is a technological end to this .. and I have yet to locate a recording that the instrument comes off well .. especially in light of all the fabulous modern piano interpretations from some of the greatest pianists that ever lived.

Given that you have already directly expressed your dislike of the harpsichord, it would be a good idea for you to discontinue your lack of sincerity.  I've always admired your honest enthusiasm for modern music but find nothing to admire of your writings on the current topic.

[Wakefield]

This depends upon which sonatas we are talking about. The piano can not do justice to the much represented type with arpeggio effects and cluster chords.

No doubt, but I haven't stated an absolute preference for the piano here. I have simply said, generally speaking: Scarlatti's music is better suited for the piano than Bach's music.

I think some harpsichord interpretations exacerbate the Spanish roots and percussive sound to almost unmusical extremes, as if the harpsichord were a Spanish guitar of Andalusian folk music. 

Obviously, for instance, "arpeggio effects" are more natural to plucked instruments, but I have listened to some piano disks doing complete justice to this music. I recall a fairly famous disk by Ivo Pogorelich and several sonatas performed by Horowitz.

[Ken B]

M'lud I submit into evidence one analog recording, referred to as "The Goldberg Variations", performed in an egregiously Romantic manor by one W Kempff. It is an affront to musicology, but, m'lud, simply gorgeous.

[Mandryka]

No doubt, but I haven't stated an absolute preference for the piano here. I have simply said, generally speaking: Scarlatti's music is better suited for the piano than Bach's music.

I think some harpsichord interpretations exacerbate the Spanish roots and percussive sound to almost unmusical extremes, as if the harpsichord were a Spanish guitar of Andalusian folk music. 

Obviously, for instance, "arpeggio effects" are more natural to plucked instruments, but I have listened to some piano disks doing complete justice to this music. I recall a fairly famous disk by Ivo Pogorelich and several sonatas performed by Horowitz.

When the people who use modern pianos play fast and busy Scarlatti sonatas, it always sounds a bit hectic to me, I don't know why. The harpsichordists can sound more noble and composed in the faster music, and for that reason I prefer them.

I'll also add I think it's unfair to call  percussive harpsichord playing unmusical like that, as if percussiveness = unmusicality.  Some of Skip Sempé's percussive performances - K492 - do "complete justice to the music."

Re Bach, it seems so strange to me that pianists haven't recorded the ricercari from opfer more.

[Marc]

[....]
Re Bach, it seems so strange to me that pianists haven't recorded the ricercari from opfer more.

Even more strange when you consider that Bach composed them for Das musikalische Opfer after visiting Der Alte Fritz in Potsdam, where he had played the fortepiano. Dunno about the 6 part piece, but, who knows, maybe Bach was thinking of Friedrich's Hammerklavier whilst composing the Ricercar a 3.

Re harpsichord: thanks to this thread, where this both ancient and eternal debate (piano vs harpsichord) has started all over again, and thanks to my fruitless quest for James, I have been listening to harpsichord recordings all over again for the last few days and have thoroughly enjoyed them .... all over again.

[Karl Henning]

. . . my fruitless quest for James . . . .

You can lead a horse to water, but this horse sez, Pffffffftt, that's not water!

[prémont]

When the people who use modern pianos play fast and busy Scarlatti sonatas, it always sounds a bit hectic to me, I don't know why. 

Because the tracker action of modern pianos is too slow to articulate the music clearly in very fast tempo.

Re Bach, it seems so strange to me that pianists haven't recorded the ricercari from opfer more.

There are a few fortepiano recordings of the 3-part ricercare, which I agree may be written with this instrument in mind, considering its more "modern" style.
The 6-part ricercare however is written in kind of stylo antico, and was probably meant for organ, harpsichord being a secondary option.

[prémont]

No doubt, but I haven't stated an absolute preference for the piano here. I have simply said, generally speaking: Scarlatti's music is better suited for the piano than Bach's music.

Even if it is very likely that a number of Scarlattis´s sonatas may be written with the early fortepiano in mind, they are obviously not written with the modern piano in mind, so playing Scarlatti on modern piano looks like an emergency solution for musicians who do not have access to / have interest in or master the fortepiano nor its style.

I think some harpsichord interpretations exacerbate the Spanish roots and percussive sound to almost unmusical extremes, as if the harpsichord were a Spanish guitar of Andalusian folk music.

I do not hear percussive elements in harpsichord sound as opposed to piano sound, and this is not surprising, because the piano is a percussion instrument, and the harpsichord isn´t.
But I agree that some harpsichordists seem to overdoo the Spanish guitar elements. But this may to some extent be caused by the fact, that most harpsichords sound more incisive and aggressive on recordings than in the real life.

Obviously, for instance, "arpeggio effects" are more natural to plucked instruments, but I have listened to some piano disks doing complete justice to this music. I recall a fairly famous disk by Ivo Pogorelich and several sonatas performed by Horowitz.

I admire Horowitz very much - his musicality and technical powers - even I do not agree, that his Scarlatti (or any other pianist´s Scarlatti I have heard for that matter) does full justice to the specific harpsichord effects in the music for the reasons I stated above.

[Karl Henning]

I admire Horowitz very much - his musicality and technical powers - even I do not agree, that his Scarlatti (or any other pianist´s Scarlatti I have heard for that matter) does full justice to the specific harpsichord effects in the music for the reasons I stated above.

Indeed. Much as I enjoy Scarlatti and Bach played on the modern piano, to hear either composer only on the piano, is almost like not actually hearing either composer.  But through a glass darkly . . . .