Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier

Started by Bogey, May 06, 2007, 01:26:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brahmsian

Quote from: Bulldog on August 23, 2010, 10:43:12 AM
I was reading previous postings on this thread and noticed the above posting and another one where I stated my goal was to be the last remaining adult in the U.S. without a cell phone.

As it happens, I asked for a cellphone for Father's Day and that's just what I got.  Haven't used it for much so far.
Being contrary was getting to be a drag, especially when I'm doing some shopping and need to get some info. from my wife.

That's OK Don, I'm happy to take over this goal.

kishnevi

Quote from: Brahmsian on August 23, 2010, 10:46:52 AM
That's OK Don, I'm happy to take over this goal.

Not so fast.  You're in competition with me.

My own view of cell phones is this: if it's that important that someone needs to get a hold of me that quickly, then it's almost certainly something I don't want to know about.

MN Dave

I have a few recordings of this and enjoy them all. I think Bach shines through no matter the interpretation. This music does something quite pleasant to my mind; it's as if I have an addiction to his solo instrumental works and nothing else will satisfy.

Scarpia

Quote from: Bulldog on August 23, 2010, 10:43:12 AM
I was reading previous postings on this thread and noticed the above posting and another one where I stated my goal was to be the last remaining adult in the U.S. without a cell phone.

As it happens, I asked for a cellphone for Father's Day and that's just what I got.  Haven't used it for much so far.
Being contrary was getting to be a drag, especially when I'm doing some shopping and need to get some info. from my wife.

The secret is not to tell anyone your cell number.  The other secret is not to call anyone's cell phone with your cell phone.  Then your cell number gets automatically stored in their phone.

Mandryka

#744
Quote from: DarkAngel on December 16, 2009, 07:39:18 AM


Have been enjoying the Kirkpatrick/Archiv WTC set on clavicord from 1960s, the unique sound quality had me doing some basic research to see exactly how clavicord produces sound. Clavicord uses metal wires that are struck from above and sound can vary by amount of force used to strike key and length of time key is depressed, thereby giving it some expressive features missing from harpsicord play. The volume level is low however making it primarily a solo use instrument (or small intimate chamber group).

Has a delicate intricate sound that can reveal many musical harmonies, I liked it more than I thought I would, but only as a supplement to piano & harpsicord. The lack of volume projection can be offset with close miking for solo work, but still sounds a bit anemic overall compared to piano & harpsicord, dramatic contrasts are minimized

Anyone else like these or have any other clavicord versions to recommend?

I am enjoying  this a lot  for the colours and the intimacy and the relative objectivity of the style.

To what extent is this played on an authentic instrument -- a reconstruction of something which really existed in Bach's time?

Or is it that degree of refinement and evolution  here is so far in excess of anything Bach would have known that it really is a travesty?
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darĂ¼ber muss man schweigen

Scarpia

Quote from: DarkAngel on December 16, 2009, 07:39:18 AM
Anyone else like these or have any other clavicord versions to recommend?

In this set book I is performed on clavichord.  It is OOP and impossible to find used, but Hyperion still sells it as a lossless download.



Coopmv

Quote from: Mandryka on October 25, 2010, 04:07:37 AM
I am enjoying  this a lot  for the colours and the intimacy and the relative objectivity of the style.

To what extent is this played on an authentic instrument -- a reconstruction of something which really existed in Bach's time?

Or is it that degree of refinement and evolution  here is so far in excess of anything Bach would have known that it really is a travesty?

I have the WTC I & II by Kirkpatrick as well.  He did have some pretty unique performance style.  A long time professor of music at Yale and he was the American Gustav Leonhardt ...

Bulldog

Just wanted to share my story of two complete WTC's from Richard Egarr and Pieter-Jan Belder.

I listened repeatedly to Belder's Bk. 1 for a couple of weeks.  Although not emotionally rich, Belder was very rewarding for the youthful energy he supplied and the different registrations he used in the repeats.  As for his harpsichord, it did sound rather thin but with a nice tangy quality.  Then, I switched to Egarr's Bk. 1 and was amazed at how much more rich and nuanced he played than Belder; I was already aware that Egarr is not one of the more nuanced keyboardists on the block.

Okay, I then started in with Belder's Bk. 2.  What a difference from Bk. 1!  Now Belder is an artist who wants to savor Bach's music.  On top of that, the harpsichord used in Bk. 2 has a much richer sound/more alive.  I really love his Bk. 2.  On to Egarr's Bk. 2 where his nuances only match those in his Bk. 1.  Belder easily surpasses Egarr here.

Overall, I think that Belder had a plan for his interpretations - to go from youthful declarations in Bk. 1 to a mature and highly involved set of performances in Bk. 2, a progression that Egarr does not recognize as he plays both Books in the same manner.

What's your opinion on the differences/similarities between these two sets?

Henk

I'm not a fan of van Asperen's recording (Virgin). It's sounds as a definitive, timeless interpretation (as mentioned by another member in this thread), but I find it rather dull.

Henk

Opus106

Quote from: Henk on November 20, 2010, 04:24:37 AM
It's sounds as a definitive, timeless interpretation (as mentioned by another member in this thread), but I find it rather dull.

Henk

Definitive and dull? :-\
Regards,
Navneeth

Henk

#750
Quote from: Opus106 on November 20, 2010, 05:00:16 AM
Definitive and dull? :-\

I think van Asperen tried to record a definitive version and in certain ways it is, I can hear it, but this is not the way you should perform I think. It doesn't work and with such a performance the music gets dull. It's too much interpretated with no personal feel / touch to it. Van Asperen as an artist and performer isn't present and therefor fails imo.

Henk

Coopmv

Quote from: Henk on November 20, 2010, 04:24:37 AM
I'm not a fan of van Asperen's recording (Virgin). It's sounds as a definitive, timeless interpretation (as mentioned by another member in this thread), but I find it rather dull.

Henk

I have that set and find it to be decent.  It is by no means a definitive performance.

Scarpia

Quote from: Bulldog on October 26, 2010, 02:47:56 PMI listened repeatedly to Belder's Bk. 1 for a couple of weeks.  Although not emotionally rich, Belder was very rewarding for the youthful energy he supplied and the different registrations he used in the repeats.  As for his harpsichord, it did sound rather thin but with a nice tangy quality.  Then, I switched to Egarr's Bk. 1 and was amazed at how much more rich and nuanced he played than Belder; I was already aware that Egarr is not one of the more nuanced keyboardists on the block.

I'm confused.  You say the switch to Egarr revealed a more rich and nuanced interpretation, but in the next sentence you say Egarr is generally not nuanced, as though your previous statement is a confirmation of this.  I'm missing your meaning.  If I try to take it literally, you are saying Egarr is not nuanced, but Belder is so uber-not nuanced he makes Egarr sound nuanced by comparison?   I must be missing something.

Bulldog

Quote from: Scarpia on November 20, 2010, 08:04:53 AM
I'm confused.  You say the switch to Egarr revealed a more rich and nuanced interpretation, but in the next sentence you say Egarr is generally not nuanced, as though your previous statement is a confirmation of this.  I'm missing your meaning.  If I try to take it literally, you are saying Egarr is not nuanced, but Belder is so uber-not nuanced he makes Egarr sound nuanced by comparison?   I must be missing something.

Okay, I'll try to clear this up.  Egarr's Bk. 1 is much more nuanced than Belder's Bk. 1.  However, in the universe of recordings, Egarr is not highly nuanced.  He only appears highly nuanced in comparision to Belder.

In Book 2, Belder is the more nuanced interpreter.

Antoine Marchand

#754
Quote from: Bulldog on November 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
In Book 2, Belder is the more nuanced interpreter.

... (only) in comparison to Egarr or generally speaking?  ;D


Scarpia

Quote from: Bulldog on November 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Okay, I'll try to clear this up.  Egarr's Bk. 1 is much more nuanced than Belder's Bk. 1.  However, in the universe of recordings, Egarr is not highly nuanced.  He only appears highly nuanced in comparision to Belder.

In Book 2, Belder is the more nuanced interpreter.

Pardon me, but I'm a quantitative person.  You're saying the average performer has nuance coefficient 0.5, Egarr is generally at 0.4, but since Belder has nuance coefficient 0.1, Egarr is very nuanced by comparison.   ;D

That's what I thought, although I thought maybe you were saying that, though Egarr is generally not so nuance, he outdid himself in this particular recording.


Opus106

You are confused person, Scarpia! :P :D (Oh, sorry; you have confusion co-efficient (C_c) of 1.0923 +/- 0.0004, 0<=C_c<=1.)
Regards,
Navneeth

Bulldog

Quote from: Scarpia on November 20, 2010, 09:34:12 AM
Pardon me, but I'm a quantitative person.  You're saying the average performer has nuance coefficient 0.5, Egarr is generally at 0.4, but since Belder has nuance coefficient 0.1, Egarr is very nuanced by comparison.   ;D

That's what I thought, although I thought maybe you were saying that, though Egarr is generally not so nuance, he outdid himself in this particular recording.

That's pretty much on target.

Coopmv

Quote from: Opus106 on November 20, 2010, 09:45:47 AM
You are confused person, Scarpia! :P :D (Oh, sorry; you have confusion co-efficient (C_c) of 1.0923 +/- 0.0004, 0<=C_c<=1.)

How is that coefficient calculated anyway?   ;D

Bulldog

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on November 20, 2010, 09:15:52 AM
... (only) in comparison to Egarr or generally speaking?  ;D

Not only in comparison to Egarr, but also in comparison to his own Bk. 1; that's the comparison that really impresses me.