J.S. Bach on the Organ

[alyosha]

[Sorry about the fonts; still trying to figure it out. Newbie stuff... ]

To be more specific about my first question: There's one main interpretive difference i'm hearing early in my dive back into Bach organ, when compared to the large amount of harpsichord/etc i've listened to. I think the best term for it is rhythmic phrasing -- meaning expressive departures from perfectly even timing, shaping entire phrases. Not, as i saw clarified earlier in the thread, agogics (affecting notes individually), nor other short effects like "notes inegales"; nor the more occasional rubatos and rallentandos at turning points in the piece. I'm talking about the ebb and flow, the lilt, the swing, whatever shape is given to phrasing throughout the piece; affecting all lines at once or one in tension with others.

I don't want to get into a tangent (bad pun not intended!) about baroque/keyboard HIP, and i know our understanding of them is still evolving and is in varying degrees controversial. Suffice it to say that among contemporary harpsichordists (by which i mean Leonhardt on the early end, but esp his students and those otherwise in the next generation), while there's a spectrum, one hears a great deal of clearly non-even timing throughout Bach string-keyboard performance. And at the more even-timed end of the spectrum, it's as a rule still not metronomic, though the departures can be subtle.

In most of the Bach organ i've sampled recently, though, i don't find this to be the case. The default style is to my ears quite even, certainly a big shift across the spectrum more so than harpsichord. To clarify, of course there are significant sections that are understood to be improvisatory, or introductory, etc, such that they're played more ad lib; and once again there are the rallentandos etc at section and piece endings; and so on. But in between, it's very often back to quite even time.

I'm deliberately not offering examples -- to keep this short (or less long), and not to emphasize my newbie perceptions, but to ask you: Am i wrong about this? Why is this the case? Is there an express HIP reason for the difference? Or is it tradition adhering to the instruments?

Ok, i will give one example: Walcha. I find him generally even in the way i've described. And i was excited to discover i could check this against his harpsichord Partitas. And to be honest -- and please be clear i have tremendous respect for him -- i found them pretty much metronomic, i would say quite beyond the pale of contemporary HIP. But i don't know what that means about his organ playing, being ignorant about organ pre-/HIP...

So the final question, perhaps most fun for the forum:

   
• What Bach organist(s) would you recommend for someone like me who prefers a less even, more expressive rhythm?

[Mandryka]

So when I read your post I tried to think of Bach organists who use agogic accents and hesitations as strikingly as Rubsam does in his piano recordings, or Vartolo in his Art of Fugue.

The one that popped into my head straight away was Mateo Messori in his CU 3.

Clearly there are loads of organists who play more flexibly than Walcha. But that's a different point.

[alyosha]

So when I read your post I tried to think of Bach organists who use agogic accents and hesitations as strikingly as Rubsam does in his piano recordings, or Vartolo in his Art of Fugue.

The one that popped into my head straight away was Mateo Messori in his CU 3.

Well-chosen -- thank you so much! (And gorgeous harpsichord playing as well.)

Any other ideas, thread-readers?

As to Rubsam: I was asking in the HIP context...but more on that in a minute

[alyosha]

 Ok, public and private feedback indicates that my first post questions were a bit too broad. So here's some more self-intro leading into making the second question more specific.

My standard tastes for earlier music are perhaps "dumbbell"-shaped: HIP is my favorite for sure . (I have a broad view of HIP, but that's a topic for another time.) And i also like idiosyncratic, post-/modern types. People who in their various ways, however they think of it, may be picking and choosing from diverse approaches, almost arranging vs performing, creating something more original than simply a new mainstream interpretation. Listeners will have their own definitions and fuzzy boundaries, but some examples for me: Gould and Pletnev on piano, Kremer on violin, Fisk on guitar. (Note that HIP can be one of the ingredients in the postmodern recipe.) And reading/listening through this thread, right up to Mandryka's post just above, i've thought about Rubsam. Listening to his Bach on piano, i'm inclined to include him as well. But i'm too ignorant to say re organ.

At the "handle" of the barbell, i tend to be least interested in traditional/romantic pre-HIP. No disrespect to the artists, not at all!; and again i'll avoid going into general HIPology (though i'm happy for others to raise it ). The simplest thing is that i was raised on that stuff, and i know it well -- usually too well for my taste. For instance romanticized Bach violin concertos with a modern solo instrument, bowing and vibrato, large orchestra, etc.

The reason i've gone into this, besides self-introduction, is that organ is a different story for me. I don't have an ear for romantic or otherwise pre-HIP Bach organ interpretation. Nor how to pick those aspects out of a performer's mix (perhaps relating to Mandryka's point about "HIP" not being helpful?). I guess there is one i know i can hear, and that is frequent registration changes. But even there...

So my questions this time: Could folks please recommend Bach organists who:

   
• are relatively pure examples of romantic, perhaps regional, in any case mainstream pre-HIP?

   
• are idiosyncratic, in the way i defined above? Would Rubsam be a candidate?

[jlaurson]

So my questions this time: Could folks please recommend Bach organists who:

   
• are relatively pure examples of romantic, perhaps regional, in any case mainstream pre-HIP?

   
• are idiosyncratic, in the way i defined above? Would Rubsam be a candidate?

Hmm... I'm with you re: Gould and esp. Pletnev, but when it comes to Bach and organ, that's not even the frame of reference I have in my interpretative preference. There it's all about pulse. As long as the pulse is steady (and there are a million different ways it could be), I'm game... but when I think "idiosyncratic", I think arrhythmia... and I don't want that at any price. But what does that mean to you? Does it include the instrument choice? "pure examples of romantic, perhaps regional, in any case mainstream pre-HIP?" confuses me so, I it is meaningless to me. Pre-HIP? HIP has always been around when it comes to organs, because of the organs. But then there's playing style ("heel or no heel" being part of that package), agogics... I know no recording where there are choristers on the bellows... though surely that would dictate truly HIP tempos... in any case: an out-of-the-ordinary, wonderful, colorful collection is the Silbermann Organ survey on Berlin Classics. (See also: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2012/05/notes-from-2012-dresden-music-festival_23.html

There's some eccentricity, even arrhythmia in Vernet, but only for a few works early on... and from there his set emerges as a bright and wholly enjoyable survey... and certainly not along been-there-done-that lines...

Michel Chapuis has his odd and crazy moments from what I've gathered...

Ruebsam II is certainly "different". He's got a pulse, by all means... just a deliberate one. He's very keen himself on these recordings, as opposed to the youthful 'plain dash' on Philips.

(or as others have put it: " the early Rübsam is still far from the ponderous slowness that make some of his later Naxos recordings unbearable")

More at another point... I am in the process of putting all Bach Organ cycles together in a survey, which might yield more information that could be useful to you. Oh, and if you want wacky: there's always that crazy Frenchman whose name escapes me... who actually recorded two (oop) cycles for Philips and who ...Guillou! Shudder. Terrifying, to my ears, but definitely idiosyncratic!

[Mandryka]

I sometimes think that Rubsam 2 is influenced by Walcha 2, by the idea that the best way to play baroque music is to preserve in its sound something still, calm and concentrated.

One organist you may enjoy hearing is Lena Jacobson, but as far as I know she hasn't recorded any Bach. There's also Jolanda Zwoferink.

[Parsifal]

Oh, and if you want wacky: there's always that crazy Frenchman whose name escapes me... who actually recorded two (oop) cycles for Philips and who ...Guillou! Shudder. Terrifying, to my ears, but definitely idiosyncratic!

Who can you be talking about?

[Karl Henning]

Who can you be talking about?

... I am in the process of putting all Bach Organ cycles together in a survey, which might yield more information that could be useful to you. Oh, and if you want wacky: there's always that crazy Frenchman whose name escapes me... who actually recorded two (oop) cycles for Philips and who ...Guillou! Shudder. Terrifying, to my ears, but definitely idiosyncratic!

[Parsifal]

Ok, but that's not Philips.

[Karl Henning]

I never said I could do it all.

[Parsifal]

I never said I could do it all.

I understand, you're still light-headed from climbing all of those stairs and you haven't had your cookie yet...

[Karl Henning]

Well, I do not see any conditions under which I could do it all, so it is generally a claim I avoid.

[jlaurson]

One for Philips, the other for Dorian then...

[Mandryka]

And i also like idiosyncratic, post-/modern types. People who in their various ways, however they think of it, may be picking and choosing from diverse approaches, almost arranging vs performing, creating something more original than simply a new mainstream interpretation. Listeners will have their own definitions and fuzzy boundaries, but some examples for me: Gould and Pletnev on piano, Kremer on violin, Fisk on guitar. (Note that HIP can be one of the ingredients in the postmodern recipe.) And reading/listening through this thread, right up to Mandryka's post just above, i've thought about Rubsam. Listening to his Bach on piano, i'm inclined to include him as well. But i'm too ignorant to say re organ

I was really thinking of articulation when I suggested you try Messori before.  If I think now about registration and counterpoint, then one interesting performance of Art of Fugue at least is Keï Koïto's. Jens Christensen too.

[Mandryka]

Guillou! Shudder. Terrifying, to my ears, but definitely idiosyncratic!

You know, this is an organist who has always left me cold, I only get the impression of empty technique, and that's stopped me exploring what he does in any depth.

I hope there's a Guillou fan out there who can inspire me, point me to  a really successful performance. I see that there's a ton of his CDs on qobuz streaming.

[prémont]

.. there's always that crazy Frenchman whose name escapes me... who actually recorded two (oop) cycles for Philips and who ...Guillou! Shudder. Terrifying, to my ears, but definitely idiosyncratic!

You know, this is an organist who has always left me cold, I only get the impression of empty technique, and that's stopped me exploring what he does in any depth.

Once I owned his first incomplete "cycle" for Dorian (5 CDs + 1CD with his transcription of the Goldbergvariations). I have to admit, that I parted with it. Even completism has got its natural limits. And I have never considered his second more complete live cycle for Philips (1999).

[Wakefield]

Who can you be talking about?

Jean Guillou, as Jens said... Creepy.

Unfortunately (just kidding), this set is available:

http://www.amazon.es/Bach-lOeuvre-Orgue-Guillou-Jean/dp/B008OJ29J4/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1368560905&sr=8-9&keywords=guillou

[Parsifal]

All these comments have convinced me I need these Guillou recordings!

[jlaurson]

All these comments have convinced me I need these Guillou recordings!

Just agree on a safety word, beforehand!

[prémont]

To be more specific about my first question: There's one main interpretive difference i'm hearing early in my dive back into Bach organ, when compared to the large amount of harpsichord/etc i've listened to. I think the best term for it is rhythmic phrasing -- meaning expressive departures from perfectly even timing, shaping entire phrases. Not, as i saw clarified earlier in the thread, agogics (affecting notes individually), nor other short effects like "notes inegales"; nor the more occasional rubatos and rallentandos at turning points in the piece. I'm talking about the ebb and flow, the lilt, the swing, whatever shape is given to phrasing throughout the piece; affecting all lines at once or one in tension with others.[/size][/font]


In most of the Bach organ i've sampled recently, though, i don't find this to be the case. The default style is to my ears quite even, certainly a big shift across the spectrum more so than harpsichord. To clarify, of course there are significant sections that are understood to be improvisatory, or introductory, etc, such that they're played more ad lib; and once again there are the rallentandos etc at section and piece endings; and so on. But in between, it's very often back to quite even time.

You are obviously talking about rhythmic rubato, which means rhytmic free playing within the frames of an even pulse. It can be used more or less subtle. It is true, that most organists still use this expressive tool in a rather restrained way.  In the first many years after the organ movement, which caused the subtotal cease of romantic expressive playing (some traits like general legato playing were maintained), most organists wanted just to play what they read in the score, and since Bachs organ music scores only indicate pitch and only to some extent rhythm and tempo, this gave rise to rhythmic monotone, homogeneous playing, fittingly called sewing-machine style. It a took long time to get past this step, and in practice the catalysator was Gustav Leonhardt particularly for keyboard players. But Leonhardt was first and foremost harpsichordist and his pupils accordingly harpsichordists too. This may explain why harpsichordists were the first to adopt the rhythmic rubato, which since the mid 1960es was one of the definite characteristics of Leonhardt´s style.  It is worth noting, that even Leonhardt in his Bach organ recordings from the 1970es uses very little rhytmic rubato. I have problems with seeing a similarly groundbreaking figure concerning the rhytmic rubato among the organists. Rather the widely dominating Helmut Walcha may have acted as a partial obstacle to the development.

Recording organists which use any substantial degree of rhythmic rubato in Bach are still few. I think one of the first was Ewald Kooiman, who combined the rhythmic rubato with a distinct - and sometimes maybe a bit overdone - rhythmic articulation. His two first Bach integrals (the first on Dutch LPs, the second on Coronata CDs) are difficult to get hold of. His third integral on Aeolus, from which he died, and which was completed by three of his pupils, is worth some consideration. He recorded 8 of the 19 CDs.

I agree with Mandryka about Matteo Messori. For Brilliant he has recorded Clavierübung III and this doubleCD with mainly choral free works:
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Schubler-Chorales-Messori/dp/B009F2CWWS/ref=sr_1_8?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1368565144&sr=1-8&keywords=matteo+messori

It is obvious to mention Wolfgang Rübsam´s second Bach integral (Naxos), but he is more controversial. An acquired taste if you ever acquire it.


As to litterature I agree with Marc´s mentioning of Kooiman and Weinbergers book:
http://www.amazon.de/Interpretation-Orgelmusik-Johann-Sebastian-Bachs/dp/3875372158/

Also I would mention this book by Dorottya Fabian. She deals in detail with the different elements of performance practice (balance. tempo, dynamics, ornamentation, rhythm and articulation) in the preauthentic and early authentic age. Her point of departure is not the organ music but the SMP, the SJP, the Goldberg variations and the Brandenburg concertos, put her conclusions are applicable on the organ music too:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bach-Performance-Practice-1945-1975-Comprehensive/dp/0754605493/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1368565854&sr=8-5&keywords=robert+donington+the+interpretation+of+early+music

Also Robert Donington´s book: The interpretation of Early music (W W Norton) has some relevant sections about performance practice:
http://www.amazon.fr/The-Interpretation-Early-Music-Donington/dp/039396003X/ref=tmm_ghc_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1368566696&sr=8-2

Bruce Haynes´ book The End of Early Music, which Mandryka recommends, is well written, if only partially relevant to your questions, but I think everybody with a keen interest in early music ought to read it:
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Early-Music-Twenty-First/dp/0195189876/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368567002&sr=8-1&keywords=bruce+haynes+the+end+of+early+music