Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier

[prémont]

Have you heard Peter Hill?

Only the f-minor from book I. You posted a reference to it once for comparation with Gulda.. I have to say, that I do not at all like his style. Too saggy rhythm and deliberate touch.

[Mandryka]

Only the f-minor from book I. You posted a reference to it once for comparation with Gulda.. I have to say, that I do not at all like his style. Too saggy rhythm and deliberate touch.

Gosh, you must be an elephant, I can't remember posting it, I only have Book 2 now, I used to have Bk. 1. In terms of rhythm and touch it seems OK to me. The reason I mentioned it is as follows:

The problem I have with all modern piano recordings I know is that the sound of each note is too heavy. In a harpsichord performance, a good one like Leonhardt's (which I've just been playing), there's air between each note which brings a wonderful lightness to the textures, it must be real hard to do on piano because they don't. Peter Hill is  lighter and fresher than other modern piano recordings.  In other respects, the  interpretation would be is neutral, mainstream, if it were on harpsichord we'd say it was worthless, made no contribution. But it's not on harpsichord, so it's centrality, paradoxically,  becomes a novelty. And a way harpsichordophobes can access something good.

I am becoming anti-modern piano in WTC 2 at least. It doesn't suit most of the music. Hill and Nikolayeva make me think I may be being unfair to the instrument and the we should shoot the piano players, not the pianos.

[Jo498]

But didn't someone above say that it was foolish to try to imitate features of the harpsichord on the piano?

I think the pieces from both WTC books are sufficiently diverse that some can profit from the possibilities of the modern piano, be it generally "heavier" sound, dynamic shades, or more cantabile sound because the tones are sustained longer.
If anything the arpeggio or moto perpetuo pieces among the book 1 preludes work better on harpsichord for my taste (same goes for the more "gypsy guitar" Scarlatti sonatas and the Handelian movements with variation by diminuition). But the more elaborate preludes and most of the fugues can work well on different instruments (and they bring out different features better/less good respectively).
In his "mixed" recording Levin plays e.g. the E major fugue from book II on the organ which is very apt for this "stile antico" piece and while the modern piano cannot imitate the organ, it is weightier and can sustain notes longer than an harpsichord or clavichord.

[aukhawk]

But Gould more effective at channelling Bach, it seemed to me.

Because . . . ?

A fair question, to which I don't have an answer, sorry.
And Richter, yes, very 19thC, pedals his way shamelessly through Bk I Prelude 16 for example.  But I've never heard the 1st Prelude played better than Richter does it.  (Admittedly, somehow it ends up sounding a bit like The Isle of the Dead ...)

But the real reason I've come back is to confess that I did Roberts an injustice - searching through my collection I eventually realised it is his recording of the 6 Partitas that I have, and don't like.  I'll try to keep an open mind about his WTC, which I haven't heard.

[Mandryka]

I prefer the piano for Bach's music because of its dynamic possibilities in bringing out the contrapuntal lines.  Also, there are more options for articulation and phrasing. 

Can you say a bit more about these two or three points? Dynamics and counterpoint, articulation (=phrasing?) options.

[Mandryka]

It is really very simple: the piano has unlimited capacity for dynamic variation, i.e. playing loudly or softly depending upon the performer's touch.  My understanding of the harpsichord is that this is not possible: it does not matter how hard you hit the key the plucked string plays at the same volume - the only way dynamic variation is possible is by the addition of another keyboard. 

I just want you to spell this out fully, it's relation to counterpoint. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but if you think that the dynamic possibilities mean that you can attract  the listener's attention to one of multiple simultaneous voices, you're right, but the same can be done on harpsichord by means of rhythm and tempo. That's why little micro-hesitations are so central to baroque harpsichord playing - they attract your attention to a bit of the music. The effect in terms of voice leading is not quite the same because all the voices are equally clear, even though your attention is led to one. Some people (me) think that that makes the music sound better, not least because the harmonies which occur when the notes in different voices collide are always very evident.

Similarly, the articulation, i.e. legato-staccato playing, is infinitely more expressive on the piano than the harpsichord.

Ah, that sort of articulation (not phrasing) I'm not sure I agree with you here. I need to think.

By utilizing these advantages, a performer on the piano can bring out contrapuntal lines among a complex texture with more clarity.

Aha, this does look as though you're talking about making one line the melody and the rest the accompaniment. Is that what it's boiling down to?

[Mandryka]

Yes.  For me, it is more natural and musical on the piano than the kind of rhythmic (aggogic) and tempo variations you referred to that are possible on the harpsichord.  But you must remember that the "melody" is in constant flux, moving from voice to voice and to call the other voices accompaniment is not how I would describe them. 

A good pianist will incorporate various levels of articulation/dynamics producing a variety of weights based on the importance of the musical content occuring at any moment.

When a harpsichord player uses agogics for voice leading, the voices start to come slightly out of alignment. The relation between the voices can become something which adds a lot of drama to the music. You know, it can appear as though one voice is pulling the music back or pushing it forward, that sort of thing. 

You may find someone who does this sort of thing (Wilson, Egarr, Leonhardt, Asperen . . . ) unnatural and unmusical, but I don't, and I know it's the sort of thing that 16th and 17th century musicians did. You're dismissing a lot of music making there. It's a bit like someone (perish the thought) saying that they find the pianistic approach to Bach dumbed down!

[James]

I just received and have started listening to the latest Andras Schiff on ECM (only listened to 1-8 in Bk I). Of course, it is quite polished, elegant, and understated, but there are some very nice instances of skillful use of piano to highlight the various voices. I am not sure it will become a favorite like Richter or Feinberg, but I am enjoying it quite a bit. Has anyone heard it?

I think Richard Egarr will be my next version...

Schiff is a great player .. I really like his old Decca Bach recordings.

[prémont]

Gosh, you must be an elephant, I can't remember posting it, I only have Book 2 now, I used to have Bk. 1. In terms of rhythm and touch it seems OK to me. The reason I mentioned it is as follows:

Hopefully not an elephant in a china store. 

[prémont]

Similarly, the articulation, i.e. legato-staccato playing, is infinitely more expressive on the piano than the harpsichord.

From a technical point of view it is just the opposite. One can produce more differentiated and therefore expressive articulation on a harpsichord than on a piano. Variations of dynamics, which a piano can make, have nothing with articulation as such to do.

[Parsifal]

When a harpsichord player uses agogics for voice leading, the voices start to come slightly out of alignment. The relation between the voices can become something which adds a lot of drama to the music. You know, it can appear as though one voice is pulling the music back or pushing it forward, that sort of thing. 

You may find someone who does this sort of thing (Wilson, Egarr, Leonhardt, Asperen . . . ) unnatural and unmusical, but I don't, and I know it's the sort of thing that 16th and 17th century musicians did. You're dismissing a lot of music making there. It's a bit like someone (perish the thought) saying that they find the pianistic approach to Bach dumbed down!

This is the main reason I find Bach on the piano more satisfying. The gradations of dynamics and articulation possible on the piano allow voices to be differentiated without the use of agogic, which I find distracting.

[Mandryka]

I just received and have started listening to the latest Andras Schiff on ECM (only listened to 1-8 in Bk I). Of course, it is quite polished, elegant, and understated, but there are some very nice instances of skillful use of piano to highlight the various voices. I am not sure it will become a favorite like Richter or Feinberg, but I am enjoying it quite a bit. Has anyone heard it?

It seems totally middle of the road in every respect.

I think Richard Egarr will be my next version...

This is a very creative and innovative interpretation, you couldn't get further from "middle of the road."

[Mandryka]

This is the main reason I find Bach on the piano more satisfying. The gradations of dynamics and articulation possible on the piano allow voices to be differentiated without the use of agogic, which I find distracting.

Distracting from what?

Have you heard Leonhardt's? I just can't imagine you'd find his organic rubato distracting from anything.

[prémont]

Yes.  For me, it is more natural and musical on the piano than the kind of rhythmic (aggogic) and tempo variations you referred to that are possible on the harpsichord.  But you must remember that the "melody" is in constant flux, moving from voice to voice and to call the other voices accompaniment is not how I would describe them. 

But much dynamic variation (except for the use of terrace dynamics) was not a natural component of keyboard music in Bach's time. Therefore the interest of the music depends instead - among other things - on melody, counterpoint, rhythm and harmony.

I use to say, that the "coloring" of Bach's keyboard music (and all early keyboard music) with dynamic variation corresponds to the coloring of old copperplate engravings or black-white movies. It spoils the experience of the shapes, in the same way as dynamic variation spoils the experience of the melody, counterpoint et. c.

[Mandryka]

Everything that can be done on a harpsichord regarding rubato and agogic phrasing is also possible on a piano.  However, everything possible on a piano is not available on a harpsichord.

I know what you're getting at though there's the issue of the piano's sustain. That's why I brought up Peter Hill a couple of hours ago - it gives me hope, as does Nikolayeva for another type of piano performance, an organistic one (the one I was talking about with Todd recently by Michael Levinas is also interesting in that respect.)

[Parsifal]

Distracting from what?

Have you heard Leonhardt's? I just can't imagine you'd find his organic rubato distracting from anything.

I have not heard Leonhardt. Van Asperin is the most recent harpsichord version of the WTC I have listened to. I find the tempo variations typically used in harpsichord performance it distracting because they interfere with my ability to follow the rhythmic pulse of the music.

[prémont]

How is this accomplished?  My understanding of the plucking action of a harpsichord does not allow for dynamic variation or stresses, touch articulation, i.e. staccato/legato as is possible on a piano.

Dynamic variation is not possible. But a harpsichord has got a faster action than a piano, Therefore you can graduate the time, you want the tone to sound, better than on a piano, and this is what articulation means.

[Parsifal]

But much dynamic variation (except for the use of terrace dynamics) was not a natural component of keyboard music in Bach's time. Therefore the interest of the music depends instead - among other things - on melody, counterpoint, rhythm and harmony.

I use to say, that the "coloring" of Bach's keyboard music (and all early keyboard music) with dynamic variation corresponds to the coloring of old copperplate engravings or black-white movies. It spoils the experience of the shapes, in the same way as dynamic variation spoils the experience of the melody, counterpoint et. c.

I don't favor romantic style dynamic climaxes in performance of Bach's contrapuntal music. I appreciate use of dynamic and articulation contrasts between the voices that allows the counterpoint to be made more clear.  My view is that Bach wants us to hear all the voices as independent and any performance technique that helps achieve this is not against the spirit of Bach, even if it involves performance practices not used during his time.

[Mandryka]

I have not heard Leonhardt. Van Asperin is the most recent harpsichord version of the WTC I have listened to. I find the tempo variations typically used in harpsichord performance it distracting because they interfere with my ability to follow the rhythmic pulse of the music.

It's an interesting answer, which makes me realise just how subjective listening is (I just don't have the problem with following the pulse, and I find rock steady performances don't have the sort of nuance that I need to keep me engaged.

[prémont]

For me articulation means how the note is struck: hard, soft, short, long, etc.  on the piano these produce different sounds; not so on a harpsichord.

If you include dynamic variation in the concept of articulation, your definition of course only holds true for the piano.