Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier

[San Antone]

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

Strawman.

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 don't like the Four Seasons, and never listen to it.  And am not interested in tracking down your examples, since I can pretty much guarantee that it will change nothing in what I think of your point.

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

I have heard those Rubsam recordings, and don't like what he does; I would even say I hate what he does.  I disagreed with your first analogy and tried to explain why, and all it has done is encourage you to bring up more examples that are even less relevant and farther afield. 

What I have learned from various discussions with you on GMG is that you get something in your head and keep re-phrasing it it no matter how I respond.  You get deeper and deeper into your own hypothesis and it is pointless for me to contribute anything more since you are essentially having a conversation with yourself.

We obviously look for and appreciate different qualities in the performance of Bach.  That's the bottom line, IMO.

[Mandryka]

What seems to be going on here is as follows.

You say something like

It is considered among all musicians that . . .

I then produce counter-examples.

And then you respond with

I don't like  . . .

That's called a non-sequitur.

[San Antone]

What seems to be going on here is as follows.

You say something like

I then produce counter-examples.

And then you respond with


That's called a non-sequitur.

You produced examples which have nothing to do with orchestral section playing, or choral ensemble singing, or even 99% of chamber music ensemble playing.  It is normal, and musicians are trained, to play together as a synchronized ensemble.  Not to play disjointed so that their downbeats are not sounded together.

But you produced the example of an Elliott Carter string quartet in which he intentionally wrote it for the players to be independent of each other, often in a different tempo. That is an example I called irrelevant.  Then you brought up Harnoncourt, who I refused to believe did not conduct with all sections playing the same downbeat.

If the Carter example is how you think Bach should be performed, then we are 180 degrees apart. 

[Mandryka]

NB -- the context is the independence and equality of voices in WTC. The other genre that may be relevant is madrigal singing, just because at least one performer has tried to play multi-voiced baroque keyboard music like multi-voiced madrigals.

Then you brought up Harnoncourt, who I refused to believe did not conduct with all sections playing the same downbeat.

I'll dig out some of the things Harnoncourt wrote about this -- in Music as Speech I think, and maybe also in the interviews in the biography. His aim, basically, was to jolt the listener as much as possible. He didn't always put this idea into action,  but in some CMV recordings he did.

musicians are trained, to play together as a synchronized ensemble.  Not to play disjointed so that their downbeats are not sounded together.

Yes, this is probably true, though I suspect the position is rather more nuanced in enlightened conservatories with a specialisation in baroque and early music.

[San Antone]

I am absolutely confident that nowhere does Harnoncourt write that musicians in his ensemble do not share the same downbeat.  IIRC, Rubsam's essay in his lute harpsichord recordings he talks about Bach's autograph manuscript where the lines do not line up perfectly.  He then used that as an indication to play the music as it looked on the page, i.e. the downbeats not lining up.  I frankly think that is an absurd approach, and in my opinion his performance of the Bach works sound disjointed and shaky with little forward propulsion.  IOW, the opposite of how Bach is normally performed.

Other than a composer such as Elliott Carter purposely conceiving of a work where the players are so independent that they do not share the same tempo or meter or downbeat - all performances are based on the idea of ensemble, i.e. the musicians are playing the same tempo and establishing the same downbeat together.  It is a defect if they do not play the downbeat simultaneously.

I have forgotten why this thread has diverged from discussing recordings of the WTC and has instead gone off into the weeds of what constitutes the accepted idea of ensemble playing.

[Mandryka]

I am absolutely confident that nowhere does Harnoncourt write that musicians in his ensemble do not share the same downbeat.  IIRC, Rubsam's essay in his lute harpsichord recordings he talks about Bach's autograph manuscript where the lines do not line up perfectly.  He then used that as an indication to play the music as it looked on the page, i.e. the downbeats not lining up.  I frankly think that is an absurd approach, and in my opinion his performance of the Bach works sound disjointed and shaky with little forward propulsion.  IOW, the opposite of how Bach is normally performed.

Other than a composer such as Elliott Carter purposely conceiving of a work where the players are so independent that they do not share the same tempo or meter or downbeat - all performances are based on the idea of ensemble, i.e. the musicians are playing the same tempo and establishing the same downbeat together.  It is a defect if they do not play the downbeat simultaneously.

I have forgotten why this thread has diverged from discussing recordings of the WTC and has instead gone off into the weeds of what constitutes the accepted idea of ensemble playing.

Ah, I see the problem! Be careful not to conflate

it is considered a defect if they are not singing in a synchronized manner, i.e. as one voice.

and

I am absolutely confident that nowhere does Harnoncourt write that musicians in his ensemble do not share the same downbeat. 

There's what they do between downbeats to think about!

[San Antone]

Well, there are different styles of vocal ensemble singing: 1) choral singing where the voices are completely unified and 2) madrigal style singing where the voices do have more independence - because that is how the music is written.  But they are not so independent of each other that the sense of ensemble breaks down.

Examples of #1 would include any large choral work such as the Beethoven 9th or the Verdi Requiem, but any choral work with several singers on each part.

Examples of #2 would be 1VPP or 2VPP performances, singing polyphony where each voice sings an independent melody.

But again, they are not so independent of each other so as to destroy the sense of ensemble.

[Mandryka]

Well, there are different styles of vocal ensemble singing: 1) choral singing where the voices are completely unified and 2) madrigal style singing where the voices do have more independence - because that is how the music is written.  But they are not so independent of each other that the sense of ensemble breaks down.

Examples of #1 would include any large choral work such as the Beethoven 9th or the Verdi Requiem, but any choral work with several singers on each part.

Examples of #2 would be 1VPP or 2VPP performances, singing polyphony where each voice sings an independent melody.

But again, they are not so independent of each other so as to destroy the sense of ensemble.

Tomorrow!

[milk]

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.

Your problem is just with the metaphor then, if I'm understanding. It seems like you agree that the WAY to do Bach is infused with subjectivity, even while there are objective claims being made about what the music says.
I wonder if anything changed in CPE Bach's lifetime. Obviously things changed a lot in Mendelssohn's day. For CPE, I wonder if he thought or reacted much to the way Bach might have been played in those years - although I guess Bach Pere wasn't so popular then. Did Mendelssohn and his ilk pay much attention to any idea of how the music was played in Bach's time? Like, after the harpsichord died, did they just make assumptions? Or did they just read the music and play it the way piano's were played a la mode. 

[milk]

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.


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.

Someone should review him at Musicweb or somewhere. I guess this area of music doesn't get a lot of press; even someone like Rubsam doesn't get much attention for his Lute-harpsichord recordings. I think it's so fresh sounding and creative and a lot of fun. Most music coming from Japan isn't very interesting so maybe he's kind of buried. 

[San Antone]

Your problem is just with the metaphor then, if I'm understanding. It seems like you agree that the WAY to do Bach is infused with subjectivity, even while there are objective claims being made about what the music says.
I wonder if anything changed in CPE Bach's lifetime. Obviously things changed a lot in Mendelssohn's day. For CPE, I wonder if he thought or reacted much to the way Bach might have been played in those years - although I guess Bach Pere wasn't so popular then. Did Mendelssohn and his ilk pay much attention to any idea of how the music was played in Bach's time? Like, after the harpsichord died, did they just make assumptions? Or did they just read the music and play it the way piano's were played a la mode.

Yes, we got off in the tall grass with the metaphor.  My problem is with performances like Rubsam's lute-harpsichord recordings where he staggers all the lines and the whole thing sounds  jumbled, sloppy and squishy. 

Every composer is approached subjectively by each performer, so Bach is no different in this regard.  The only real difference is that with all contrapuntal music, the music is linear with the harmonies produced by the convergence of multiple lines.  Bach's genius was in his ability to create beautiful natural sounding melodies, each with their own arc and resolution but at the same time fulfilling their contrapuntal function.

These lines must be played with simultaneous convergences that are aligned and the harmonies are produced rhythmically.   The forward energy then grows both as a result of the various melodies developing and as the harmonic rhythm progresses.  These melodies ought to be brought out by the performer, but not in a way that jumbles the rhythm to the point of the harmonic forward propulsion breaking down.

This is why I prefer the piano since these lines can be brought out dynamically, leaving the rhythmic convergences aligned, and the performer can manipulate the harmonic rhythm with more effectiveness.  Whereas on the harpsichord, the main way to distinguish lines is by agogic staggering (or trills and other decorative elements) which if done to the extreme (as with Rubsam) destroys the forward motion of the harmonic progression, leaving a jumbled mess of weaving lines that appear to have no energy.

[milk]

Yes, we got off in the tall grass with the metaphor.  My problem is with performances like Rubsam's lute-harpsichord recordings where he staggers all the lines and the whole thing sounds  jumbled, sloppy and squishy. 

Every composer is approached subjectively by each performer, so Bach is no different in this regard.  The only real difference is that with all contrapuntal music, the music is linear with the harmonies produced by the convergence of multiple lines.  Bach's genius was in his ability to create beautiful natural sounding melodies, each with their own arc and resolution but at the same time fulfilling their contrapuntal function.

These lines must be played with simultaneous convergences that are aligned and the harmonies are produced rhythmically.   The forward energy then grows both as a result of the various melodies developing and as the harmonic rhythm progresses.  These melodies ought to be brought out by the performer, but not in a way that jumbles the rhythm to the point of the harmonic forward propulsion breaking down.

This is why I prefer the piano since these lines can be brought out dynamically, leaving the rhythmic convergences aligned, and the performer can manipulate the harmonic rhythm with more effectiveness.  Whereas on the harpsichord, the main way to distinguish lines is by agogic staggering (or trills and other decorative elements) which if done to the extreme (as with Rubsam) destroys the forward motion of the harmonic progression, leaving a jumbled mess of weaving lines that appear to have no energy.

yes, I see that. Honestly, I have a hard time with Rubsam sometimes. He's also darn slow. But I'm really sensitive to dynamics. Too much of that annoys me and I like many performances that rely on agogics if they pull off the magic trick of making it all seem coherent and natural. I think of Bradley Brookshire's French suites. I'm not sure that way of playing would be thought of or successful on the piano.  But I like both HIP and non-HIP Bach. Is there any other composer who whose music is open to so many paths?

[Florestan]

I like both HIP and non-HIP Bach. Is there any other composer whose music is open to so many paths?

Plenty of them, actually. That's exactly what makes a composer great.

OTOMH, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin. Incidentally my top 3 composers. 

[Florestan]

Did Mendelssohn and his ilk pay much attention to any idea of how the music was played in Bach's time?

I think that in Mendelssohn's time they had no idea about, nor any concern for, how the music was played in Bach's time. Nay. they even had no use for any Bach's music except the WTC --- that's why Mendelssohn's revival of Matthaeus-Passion was quite the sensation.

Like, after the harpsichord died, did they just make assumptions?

After the harpsichord died they just burried the dead and went the way of the living.

Or did they just read the music and play it the way piano's were played a la mode.

That's very probable how Chopin played Bach, one of his favorite composers (the other one being Mozart).

This post dedicated to Mandryka --- he knows why. 

[milk]

Plenty of them, actually. That's exactly what makes a composer great.

OTOMH, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin. Incidentally my top 3 composers. 

I don't hear it as much in these composers. Of course there's a range in all of them or they wouldn't be good composers and innovators. I do like Mozart on fortepiano and piano, for example. They all can be done with period instruments but somehow Bach seems much more open to me, much wider. But I don't know enough about music to say. Is it Bach himself that seems more abstract and encompassing to me? Is it something about baroque (I don't think so). To me it seems like Bach can be placed in more contexts and still work. But I don't know if there's anything objective about that. Mozart and Beethoven obviously reference Bach and you can hear it in the music and they have the advantage of coming after. But they don't really sound baroque. But Bach can be made to sound romantic or modern. Maybe this is just nonsense to people who know more about music.   

[Florestan]

Mozart and Beethoven obviously reference Bach and you can hear it in the music and they have the advantage of coming after. But they don't really sound baroque. But Bach can be made to sound romantic or modern.

Oh, now I get your point. But isn't this very point going against your philosophy, namely that Bach should not be made to sound romantic or modern? And yet again, if this is so, then why the need to ask whether "Is there any other composer who whose music is open to so many paths?"

[milk]

Oh, now I get your point. But isn't this very point going against your philosophy, namely that Bach should not be made to sound romantic or modern? And yet again, if this is so, then why the need to ask whether "Is there any other composer who whose music is open to so many paths?"

no, I generally like it all. Any way is OK with me if it has that certain something. Certain things bother me, like when pianists play with dynamics too much.

[Mandryka]

He was a student of Uittenbosch and Leonhardt and I must say, it shows in the thoughtful, fluid interpretations. Very nicely recorded harpsichord with a decent low response. The tuning sounds interesting to me. He has a knack of building tension to make the music sound sexy, orgasmic - the C sharp minor prelude in Bk 2, for example.

I haven't heard Bk 1. I don't have the booklet.

He's released a Mozart CD with Pascaille too, a preliminary dip in makes me think that it's recognisably from the same mindset as this WTC.


Over the past two or three  years there have been many new WTC2s with things to say - this, Céline Frisch, Wolfgang Rübsam, Frederick Haas . . . I'm sure I'm forgetting one.

[Mandryka]

Opinions appreciated on Rübsam's 879, the e minor of Bk 2.

[San Antone]

Opinions appreciated on Rübsam's 879, the e minor of Bk 2.

I certainly can't listen to all 12 minutes of it, after the first minute of the Prelude I want to turn it off.  I ended up listening to the first 4 minutes.  He takes it so slowly it destroys the forward movement and has no energy.  One of the worst, if not THE worst versions I've heard.

This is an exaggeration, but my overall impression is of someone who is drunk trying to remember/play it.  This prelude reminds me of the two voice inventions, but much longer.

BTW, your cover art is not correct, BWV 879 is found on Volume 4, not 3.