Bach on the piano

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I think you can fairly say I was been very critical, or even contentious and insulting to these pianists, even a jerk. But I don't see condescension in anything I said. In fact, I qualified my opinions on their playing, which is "not for me" what I "can't stand" not what I "prefer."

On the other hand when you said "mistake number one" "If that makes them incomprehensible to you" "it's called - hold yer breath"--that's what I consider condescension.

You also made several assumptions about my perspective and mischaracterized it.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

Angela Hewitt is just not for me. Dainty and bird-like, and I find her extreme pretentiousness does come through in her playing. I really can't stand overdone/delicate and sentimental pianists like her, Uchida, and Schiff most of the time. They are like verbose people. Even the fussy Brendel is a paragon of simplicity in comparison. I prefer direct or subtle or spontaneously lyrical pianists.

After the first sentence anything "qualifying" from you went right out the window. What followed was plain innuendo and falsification, and cloaking it in "opinion" isn't going to fly.

You stir the pot don't be surprised when someone comes along and throws you in.

[Bulldog]

I think what these pianists lack is taste. The last word I would use to describe Uchida's Mozart for example is introverted (we are talking about concert pianists here). It is unsubtle, effete and effusive. Likewise have you ever seen an interview with Hewitt or read anything she's written? She is very pretentious with airs of cultivation and implied interpretive supremacy. So she is entirely deserving of being mocked even. Like all pianists her personality comes out--in her pedantic interpretations.

But Hewitt does have perfect posture when she plays Bach.

Concerning Uchida's Mozart, I think she's great, especially in the fast-tempo movements where she takes me to the edge of the cliff with her runs.

[mc ukrneal]

She is very pretentious with airs of cultivation and implied interpretive supremacy. So she is entirely deserving of being mocked even.

Lost me here. What are you referring to exactly? I've not read anything that leads me to your conclusion. I think you are reading into things or letting your bias to her color what you read of her. And deserving of being mocked - can't really buy that either.

Bach should not sound "beautiful." I though Harnoncourt and Leonhardt settled that once and for all.

Lost me here as well. Bach should be 'ugly'? What exactly do you mean by this?

[Clever Hans]

Allow me to refresh your memory:

After the first sentence anything "qualifying" from you went right out the window. What followed was plain innuendo and falsification, and cloaking it in "opinion" isn't going to fly.

You stir the pot don't be surprised when someone comes along and throws you in.

So was it innuendo or condescension that I was "spewing"?

What was innuendo was your suggesting that I don't think they have anything to say and don't consider their interpretations valid. I just don't like their interpretations and find their stylistic choices annoying, to various degrees.
I really do think Hewitt is pretentious and full of it. I also provided reasons why. And I really do think Uchida is too sentimental a Mozart player and a stagey Schubert player, lacking taste and good judgment. Schiff's main problem (again my view, so feel free to disagree) is his excessive detailing. Often he can't resist adding little "utterances" as Don said and disrupting the line, especially in Bach and Beethoven.

Of course, Uchida and Schiff are both highly accomplished pianists in terms of command of the instrument, but that's not enough for me.

I am simply describing why I don't like their artistic choices and why I don't like Hewitt's personality and pseudo-intellectual airs. You can address why you think my observations are wrong. Saying with condescension that I don't understand introverted playing doesn't count. I don't even agree that their playing is introverted, especially Uchida who is the opposite.

But Hewitt does have perfect posture when she plays Bach.

Concerning Uchida's Mozart, I think she's great, especially in the fast-tempo movements where she takes me to the edge of the cliff with her runs.

See how Don just gave a specific example of substance without crying for these poor defenseless world famous pianists? I think they can take the criticism, honestly.

[Clever Hans]

Lost me here. What are you referring to exactly? I've not read anything that leads me to your conclusion. I think you are reading into things or letting your bias to her color what you read of her. And deserving of being mocked - can't really buy that either.
Lost me here as well. Bach should be 'ugly'? What exactly do you mean by this?

I literally just gave a long example. Youtube her video on Bach performance on the piano. If that's not pretentious and self-serving (not to mention entirely wrong about the WTC and one-sided about harpsichord playing) then what is?

I was referring to Harnoncourt and Leonhardt's example of not primarily sensuous Bach performance, music as speech, baroque rhetoric, etc.

[Bulldog]

I literally just gave a long example. Youtube her video on Bach performance on the piano. If that's not pretentious and self-serving (not to mention entirely wrong about the WTC and one-sided about harpsichord playing) then what is?

I just finished watching Chapter 1 of that video.  Unfortunately, Hewitt spends most of it speaking about how the piano is superior to the harpsichord; that's rather a low-class way to begin a tutorial.  She also indicated that it's harder to play the piano than the harpsichord; maybe she thinks that harpsichordists are either slackers or low on technical skills.  So, my opinion of her character has dipped some.

[Mandryka]

I like the way Hewitt she plays the G minor prelude  from Book 2 of WTC especially at the end. I like the way she phrases and the way she separates the voices and the way she colours the music.

http://www.youtube.com/v/_N1JFXScmYw

[mc ukrneal]

I literally just gave a long example. Youtube her video on Bach performance on the piano. If that's not pretentious and self-serving (not to mention entirely wrong about the WTC and one-sided about harpsichord playing) then what is?

I was referring to Harnoncourt and Leonhardt's example of not primarily sensuous Bach performance, music as speech, baroque rhetoric, etc.

Ok - so listened to this and am now continuing on with the others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbuWxzjisrQ. They are pretty interesting and I think it is clear that the issue is that she is saying things you disagree with. Her style is not particularly comfortable (not relaxed)though, so I can see how that might put you off (seems to be a fair amount scripted and she is clearly trying to enunciate clearly). Self- serving is possible as she is not only showing the music, but there are some philosophical (subjective) elements that she presents as facts and not opinions.

But 'airs of cultivation with implied supremecy'? I don't see that. There is a lot to be gotten out of it. She also gives specific examples of how different approaches sound. The listener can choose to agree or disagree, regardless of what she says. Perhaps you are reading 'superior' into something where she has a 'preference. Anwyay, I found it interesting.

[mc ukrneal]

I just finished watching Chapter 1 of that video.  Unfortunately, Hewitt spends most of it speaking about how the piano is superior to the harpsichord; that's rather a low-class way to begin a tutorial.  She also indicated that it's harder to play the piano than the harpsichord; maybe she thinks that harpsichordists are either slackers or low on technical skills.  So, my opinion of her character has dipped some.

She doesn't exactly say that. She also makes it clear on this point that it is her opinion (and a subjective question) - in fact more than once when it comes to the choice of instrument. And she is not saying that harpsichordists are technically lacking, she's saying that there are more choices to make on the piano than on the harpsichord, which is where the added difficulty comes from. 

[prémont]

I disagree about her keeping romanticism to a minimum, even though she plays in a proper way. Because she uses the piano as a means of overelegant italicized expression and beautiful sound that she finds lacking in the harpsichord.
Bach should not sound "beautiful." I though Harnoncourt and Leonhardt settled that once and for all.
This is tied to things she says that are intellectually very questionable and perhaps dishonest in justifying her preferences. Such as when she talks about the modern piano being (unlike the harpsichord) closest to the human voice, benefiting fugal voices, etc, no discussion of rhetoric or agogics however. She says that Bach wrote for not only harpsichord but also clavichord and that WTC and other pieces are essentially keyboard works, not necessarily written with any specific instruments in mind. Regardless, Bach did not have in mind an equal-tempered instrument, let alone a Fazioli luxury monstrosity. Her conclusion, which she garnishes with historical knowledge, is complete BS. You can go ahead a play Bach on a piano. No one will stop you. I don't see a fundamental problem with that--although many do--but she makes specious and self-serving arguments.

There is nothing new or original in her words. We have heard >1000 times that the harpsichord is an imperfect and inexpressive instrument (well, she admits that it sometimes may sound good), but pianists are fortunate to have a much more perfect and expressive instrument at their disposal, and fortunately she knows how to play expressively on the piano, even if it is very very difficult,-  much more difficult than playing the harpsichord. Actually she ignores historical facts about baroque performance practice, f.i. the rhetorical aspect and tuning as you mention above, and she romanticises the music with her romantic instrument (too much legato, too "delicate" touch and also by playing different strands with different colours - to mention some of the characteristic traits of her playing). Her point of departure is herself and her casual sentiments and not the music and the affects it contains. Some may like her, if they think she adds something of value to the music. I do not. The reason why I-  among Bach-pianists - prefer Richter is, that - even if he can be accused of some romanticism, manages to step back and let the music speak in a more direct way.

[Que]

I'm not in disagreement with your view on Hewitt's Bach. But frankly I think that since Bach on the piano is never going to be anything even close to authentic Bach, any pianist is well advised to go all the way and do his/her own personal thing: whether it's Hewitt's prettiness, Gould's postmodern deconstructivism, Fischer's Romantic, Schubertian approach or Richter severe Schumannesque take. Any comparison with how Bach was supposed to sound like, is pointless IMO. Bach transformed in multiple guises - well, why not?   

Full disclosure: besides harpsichord recordings I own the recreations (because that is what are) by Edwin Fischer and Glenn Gould.

Q

[Mandryka]

Her point of departure is herself and her casual sentiments and not the music and the affects it contains.

Can you say a bit more about the idea premont?

Take the G minor prelude from youtube that I posted.  Are you saying that the affect the music contains is not consistent with her style of playing?  That somehow the performance lacks integrity because she's doing one thing and the music is doing another?

I'm struggling.

[Bulldog]

She doesn't exactly say that. She also makes it clear on this point that it is her opinion (and a subjective question) - in fact more than once when it comes to the choice of instrument. And she is not saying that harpsichordists are technically lacking, she's saying that there are more choices to make on the piano than on the harpsichord, which is where the added difficulty comes from.

I didn't hear it that way, so I think you're giving her a pass.

I have nothing against Hewitt's Bach performances and own them all, including her DG disc before she signed up with Hyperion.  Still, I'd much prefer that she said nothing about the harpsichord choice rather than dump on it graciously.

[prémont]

Can you say a bit more about the idea premont?
Take the G minor prelude from youtube that I posted.  Are you saying that the affect the music contains is not consistent with her style of playing?  That somehow the performance lacks integrity because she's doing one thing and the music is doing another?

IMO the prelude is the slow introduction of a French ouverture and must be played with more stature, it  should be more regal in effect. She plays it too soft and dwelling,  like an Adagio of Beethoven. She succeeds better with the capricious fugue (fugal section), which despite the different rhytm reminds me of the Capriccio from the second harpsichord Partita, and its almost Händelian tunefulness is nicely projected. It is as if it was played with cat´s paws. But in the end section of the fugue she overdoes the point with too much increase in the dynamic level, even if her agogics are well choosen.

[prémont]

I'm not in disagreement with your view on Hewitt's Bach. But frankly I think that since Bach on the piano is never going to be anything even close to authentic Bach, any pianist is well advised to go all the way and do his/her own personal thing: Bach transformed in multiple guises - well, why not?   

But then you agree that Bach on piano is kind of distortion?

[Que]

But then you agree that Bach on piano is kind of distortion?

Or re-interpretation, recreation, or whatever name we give to it.  In any case it is outside of Bach's musical context when he wrote this music. But a piano performance is inside and part of our contemporary musical world, and maybe that is the attraction and value for many, besides the lot of interesting thoughts pianists of present and past had on these works.

Q

[prémont]

Or re-interpretation, recreation, or whatever name we give to it.  In any case it is outside of Bach's musical context when he wrote this music. But a piano performance is inside and part of our contemporary musical world, and maybe that is the attraction and value for many, besides the lot of interesting thoughts pianists of present and past had on these works.

Q

Well, I think we agree in the end.  And why shouldn´t we? The facts are what they are.

[Antoine Marchand]

Or re-interpretation, recreation, or whatever name we give to it.  In any case it is outside of Bach's musical context when he wrote this music. But a piano performance is inside and part of our contemporary musical world, and maybe that is the attraction and value for many, besides the lot of interesting thoughts pianists of present and past had on these works.

I consider that your thoughts on this point are particularly insightful. Anyway, as you know,  these thoughts will be not easily acceptable (if are acceptable at all) for pianophiles. In short, it's an argument exclusively for HIPsters who don't need to be persuaded. 

[prémont]

.. these thoughts will be not easily acceptable (if are acceptable at all) for pianophiles. In short, it's an argument exclusively for HIPsters who don't need to be persuaded. 

You are right. I named it "translation" in the other forum (CMG), and the leading pianophiles in residence made a fool of me.

[Que]

You are right. I named it "translation" in the other forum (CMG), and the leading pianophiles in residence made a fool of me.

I think we should promote Beethoven performed on the harpsichord and see what they have to say about that.

Q