Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier

[milk]

Impossible to find the Takehisa. If you can't hear the dynamic changes in Vieru, Crossland etc, it may as well not be there! In the Woodward if indeed there is dynamic emphasis there it's pointless as he trills the first note.

You have no access to the U.S. iTunes store or maybe, maybe, UK, one? That's where I went. His 881 is like nothing I've heard. And his dynamics are so weirdly beautiful. Sounds like a harp or something. Wait, can I give it to you or will it be locked?

[j winter]

There is another point I want to make -

If your goal is to use only the instruments available to Bach and play this music in a manner as he might have done, that is a historical way to play these pieces.  However, if your goal is to produce the most beautiful sound this music can achieve, despite using instruments unavailable to Bach, then you are playing in an non-historical method and concerned primarily with aesthetical issues instead of historical authenticity.

Both can be musical.

Well said

[San Antone]

No, that's not true,  we've already seen that the range issue may well be a red herring, I'll maybe investigate the range required for WTC and the normal compass of a clavichords and harpsichords, later.

Yes, do that.  Here is some info on range I found in a paper by Richard  Loucks:

For  Volume  I  the  range  must  be  chromatic  from  C  to  c'''    This excludes the  ubiquitous C/E-c'''  clavichords  (with  short  octave),  because they  lack  C#,  Eb,  F#,  and  G# (EDIT: Short  octave  keyboards eliminated  bass notes  for which  there  was  little use).   There  is  no  movement  among  the ninety-six preludes  and  fugues  that  does not  make  use of one or  more  of these  notes.  Even  instruments  with  a  broken  octave  must  be  excluded, because  they  still  lack C# and  Eb, rather  common  notes  in Volume  I. (EDIT: the  term  "broken  octave"  denotes  a  short  octave  in  which  D/F#   is split  into  two  keys  (a  rear  key and  a  front  key)  that  produce  both  notes.   Likewise  E/G# is split.)

Volume  II, however, requires  a chromatic range  from  A' to  d''' ... (EDIT: ... which is beyond the lowest note of most clavichords of his time. There were only two known to exist as early as 1742; Bach compiled Book II in 1744.  But the obvious solution is to move the low notes up an octave.)

Then there is the issue of fretted or non-fretted clavichords.  Obviously a fretted instrument could not play two notes simultaneously on the same string, and the un-fretted instrument was not as common during Bach's time, but we assume Bach owned an un-fretted instrument.

Furthermore  the piano does not have the requisite brilliance, some of the pieces benefit from that. The G major Book 1 for example.

I won't address this statement since it is your opinion and not a fact.

This leaves sustain. Can you provide some examples please?

There is only one: the a-minor fugue in Book 1 has in its final bars a pedal tone which can't be played with two hands alone without a sustain pedal, thus possibly thought of by Bach for the organ.

I think Bach wrote these 48 preludes and fugues without forcing himself to think of them for a single instrument.  Many of them were written years before and only later collected into the two books.  I doubt Bach was troubled by the fact that they all could not be played on a single instrument, and neither am I.  He probably never thought of them as concert pieces, he used them for pedagogical purposes.  The thought of playing them all back to front, in one sitting may have been odd to him.  I don't know.  However, seems I read somewhere where one of his pupils said he did this very thing.  But who's to say he did not move notes up an octave when necessary and make other adjustments on the fly.  Bach was an expert improviser.

The fact remains, the music stands as objective evidence: the pieces as written are not playable on any single instrument.  In order to do so, one must make adjustments, either moving up an octave, or releasing notes before their full duration has been achieved, or using the sustain pedal.  This is not to mention the issue of dynamics, which do not effect playability but how one hears the most musical manner (very subjective) of phrasing certain figures.

Which instrument used depends on choices on the part of the performer: how much importance they place on a historically accurate attempt or not (i.e. using only instruments available to Bach); whether using dynamics is important or not; whether they are performing in a large room or not.

[Mandryka]

I'll tell you one aspect of this which we haven't explored at all, Bach's way of writing music which can't be played. Do you remember I found a list in Leonhardt's monograph on AoF which included unplayable music in the English suites and WTC and elsewhere? I can easily find it again. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw about that. And I wonder if other composers do the same sort of thing.

Here it is  - I haven't checked the scores, and if anyone finds a problem please say because I could have copied it wrongly

Brandenburg 5, 1st movement, m. 192
D minor English Suite, at the end of the allemande
G minor English Suite, m. 24
Canonic Variations v. 5 m. 55
Four places in WTC1 -- I can provide the details if anyone wants.

In cpt IX m. 94, Cpt IV m. 35, Cpt V m. 41 and m. 60 you have a problem for keyboard because two voices meet at one note, but the duration of one is greater than the duration of the other -- which isn't possible to be heard on a harpsichord or clavichord. You have exactly this problem in

CU 3 Vater Unser (pedaliter) m.13
Orgelbuchlein Christe du lamm gottes m. 3
and three places in WTC 1.

The WTC examples may be worth exploring if anyone's interested, given the context of the discussion here. I haven't explored what's going on myself because I haven't given much attention to the first book.

[milk]

There is another point I want to make -

If your goal is to use only the instruments available to Bach and play this music in a manner as he might have done, that is a historical way to play these pieces.  However, if your goal is to produce the most beautiful sound this music can achieve, despite using instruments unavailable to Bach, then you are playing in an non-historical method and concerned primarily with aesthetical issues instead of historical authenticity.

Both can be musical.

As long as your not suggesting that harpsichordists believe they're sacrificing beautiful sound in the singular pursuit of authenticity. You'd agree that a harpsichordist can believe that the most beautiful sound comes from her instrument. Plus, one could imagine playing the music on an historical instrument but not necessarily in a manner Bach played?

[San Antone]

As long as your not suggesting that harpsichordists believe they're sacrificing beautiful sound in the singular pursuit of authenticity. You'd agree that a harpsichordist can believe that the most beautiful sound comes from her instrument. Plus, one could imagine playing the music on an historical instrument but not necessarily in a manner Bach played?

Yes, I suppose there are people who think the harpsichord produces as beautiful or a more beautiful sound than the piano (I don't think that); but we'll never know how Bach played in any event.  Everyone is following their own instincts and plays this music to the best of their ability.  For me, the piano is the best instrument for this music - but it can be abused and cloud the counterpoint. 

Schiff, IMO, is one of the best interpreters of Bach on the piano.  There are others, but his ECM recordings benefit from excellent sound and his experience of having spent a lifetime with the music.

[milk]

Yes, I suppose there are people who think the harpsichord produces as beautiful or a more beautiful sound than the piano (I don't think that); but we'll never know how Bach played in any event.  Everyone is following their own instincts and plays this music to the best of their ability.  For me, the piano is the best instrument for this music - but it can be abused and cloud the counterpoint. 

Schiff, IMO, is one of the best interpreters of Bach on the piano.  There are others, but his ECM recordings benefit from excellent sound and his experience of having spent a lifetime with the music.

I like Schiff but my tastes switch around and this is aided by my poor memory. Likewise, when something is great, it feels like the best to me, so when I'm listening to Masaaki Suzuki play the partitas, I think it's the best I've ever heard (and this goes for many performers for different works and on many instruments). I used to think that the partitas were especially suited for the harpsichord though. I go through phases when I'm only into piano and can't take the harpsichord too. I don't really accept a hierarchy which would mean there's not much use for the harpsichord. I love those old instruments and don't feel they're aesthetically less. I'm also sure HIP made pianists better.

[San Antone]

I like Schiff but my tastes switch around and this is aided by my poor memory. Likewise, when something is great, it feels like the best to me, so when I'm listening to Masaaki Suzuki play the partitas, I think it's the best I've ever heard (and this goes for many performers for different works and on many instruments). I used to think that the partitas were especially suited for the harpsichord though. I go through phases when I'm only into piano and can't take the harpsichord too. I don't really accept a hierarchy which would mean there's not much use for the harpsichord. I love those old instruments and don't feel they're aesthetically less. I'm also sure HIP made pianists better.

I may prefer the piano, but that is not all I listen to.  From time to time I will listen to harpsichord recordings, and enjoy them.  And there are some instruments that I think sound beautiful.  But the majority of the time I choose to listen to Bach on the piano.

[Mandryka]

When I heard him play BK 2 last year in London, I enjoyed it more than the ECM recording partly because the portato seemed more natural for piano. The performance is on youtube.

[San Antone]

When I heard him play BK 2 last year in London, I enjoyed it more than the ECM recording partly because the portato seemed more natural for piano. The performance is on youtube.

I am not sure what you mean by this, "the portato seemed more natural for piano."  "Portato" is a term usually applied to string/bowed playing, i.e. each note, while played with one bowing motion, is articulated gently staccato.

[Mandryka]

The liaison between one note and the next, one phrase and the next. The touch.

[milk]

I wonder what people think of Steven Devine's WTC. I think there's only bk1. It's tasteful with pleasing instrument.

[milk]

The liaison between one note and the next, one phrase and the next. The touch.

If you are able to acquire and listen Genzoh Takehisa's WTC could you give some impressions. What's he up to? Is it as out of left field as it sounds to my ears or does it resemble some historical playing tradition. Do you think he's using the instruments in a conventional way? What are you hearing? How about the pedal (harpsichord) he throws into BK1?

[Mandryka]

Yes, I've been listening a bit to Tekahisa and to Schiff in fact, in WTC 2.  I feel very positive about Tekahisa.

Tekahisa makes everything sound like a natural and spontaneous outpouring. There's a sense of liberty and of fantasy. I especially appreciate the finesse of his ornamentation. He does not hide Bach's musical clashes, caesuras and ruptures - these are the things which make the music come alive.

Tekahisa does something very much to my taste - he uses rubato to vary the pulse of each piece, without losing a sense of fluidity and indeed lyricism when required.

I like Tekahisa's piano, partly because of the contrast of the timbres in the different registers.

What's he up to? Is it as out of left field as it sounds to my ears or does it resemble some historical playing tradition.

I don't think it's left field - it seems very much inspired by the sense of rubato and the freedom of performers such as Bob Van Asperen  and Samuil Feinberg. He doesn't have anything to envy these other musicians for, IMO.

[San Antone]

If you are able to acquire and listen Genzoh Takehisa's WTC could you give some impressions. What's he up to? Is it as out of left field as it sounds to my ears or does it resemble some historical playing tradition. Do you think he's using the instruments in a conventional way? What are you hearing? How about the pedal (harpsichord) he throws into BK1?

It's not for me, for a couple of basic reasons: I don't like the instrument and I really don't like his phrasing of the music.

This is more of what I like:



Cedric Pescia - WTC



Nicely done.

[Mandryka]

Let me try some nonsense out on you.

There are two approaches to wtc, viz:

On the rails, the voices all singing from the same hymn sheet, all aligned rhythmically, all working together. More or less the same perceivable basic pulse throughout each piece.


Jazzy - the opposite of the on the rails approach. Each voice singing its own way, sometimes one voice interrupting another, pulling another back.

Examples. Pescia and Leonhardt and Kenneth Gilbert and Richter are on the rails. Van Asperen and Rubsam and Tekahisa and Glenn Wilson and Céline Frisch are Jazzy.

[San Antone]

Let me try some nonsense out on you.

There are two approaches to wtc, viz:

On the rails, the voices all singing from the same hymn sheet, all aligned rhythmically, all working together. More or less the same perceivable basic pulse throughout each piece.


Jazzy - the opposite of the on the rails approach. Each voice singing its own way, sometimes one voice interrupting another, pulling another back.

Examples. Pescia and Leonhardt and Kenneth Gilbert and Richter are on the rails. Van Asperen and Rubsam and Tekahisa and Glenn Wilson and Céline Frisch are Jazzy.

I understand your analogy, but in any ensemble it is considered a defect if they are not singing in a synchronized manner, i.e. as one voice.  Orchestras spend more rehearsal time on this aspect than any other, each section among themselves (string sections bowing in exactly the same) and then each section with the others.  It is even more important for vocal ensembles.

For me, these works for keyboard are contrapuntal in which the subject and answer move from voice to voice and that primary voice ought to be brought out.  But it bothers me when the lines themselves are not unified into a multifaceted whole.  That is more like a jazz group than your idea.

[Mandryka]

For me, these works for keyboard are contrapuntal in which the subject and answer move from voice to voice and that primary voice ought to be brought out.  But it bothers me when the lines themselves are not unified into a multifaceted whole.  That is more like a jazz group than your idea.

Everyone wants a multifaceted whole! It's just that some people are prepared to explore more complexity than primary and subsidiary voices.

it is considered a defect if they are not singing in a synchronized manner, i.e. as one voice.  Orchestras spend more rehearsal time on this aspect than any other, each section among themselves (string sections bowing in exactly the same) and then each section with the others.  It is even more important for vocal ensembles.

Insidious slip into the passive voice here . . . "it is considered"

Harnoncourt wouldn't have thought like that.

[San Antone]

Everyone wants a multifaceted whole! It's just that some people are prepared to explore more complexity than primary and subsidiary voices.

I think you are looking for unicorns.

Insidious slip into the passive voice here . . . "it is considered"

It is considered among all musicians that ensemble playing is supposed to be unified and not sloppy.

Harnoncourt wouldn't have thought like that.

I doubt that is true.  The purpose of a conductor spends most of their time to achieve ensemble playing that is unified.  That is their purpose. 

[Mandryka]

It is considered among all musicians that ensemble playing is supposed to be unified

What! Even when they're playing a string quartet by Elliott Carter?

I doubt that is true.  The purpose of a conductor spends most of their time to achieve ensemble playing that is unified.  That is their purpose.

See what you think of Harnoncourt's Four Seasons, or the relation between voice and instrument in BWV 6/iii -- Ach bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ.

I think you are looking for unicorns.

You need to listen to more Frescobaldi or de Wert madrigals.  Or indeed Rubsam's Goldberg Variations.