Bach on the piano

[Mandryka]

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.

Is that because we know that French overtures in Bach's time were played regally?

I suppose she was influenced by the largo indication -- I mean that's what led her to dwell like she does.

I like the fugue a lot -- it's certainly one of my favourites in AoF -- but I'm not sure I think as highly of the way she plays it as you do. Once again Richter seems to strike le ton juste again

http://www.youtube.com/v/fqvrxQULL-8

This whole Hewitt thing started because I mentioned her. In fact the recordings of hers that I value the most are the one with the transcriptions and the one with the "Partie" BWV 832

[DavidRoss]

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

Made a fool of you? ...or demonstrated their own foolish lack of charity towards views outside their own narrow orthodoxy? 

[Bulldog]

Made a fool of you? ...or demonstrated their own foolish lack of charity towards views outside their own narrow orthodoxy?

I'm familiar with the CMG thread that premont is talking about, and I don't think he was made to look like a fool.  Yes, there were members who were critical, but it was rather mild.  Also, there were at least a couple of members who agreed with premont.

[prémont]

Is that because we know that French overtures in Bach's time were played regally?

Yes, remember its origin, the opera ouverture of Lully at the court of the Sun king.

I like the fugue a lot -- it's certainly one of my favourites in WTC -- but I'm not sure I think as highly of the way she plays it as you do. Once again Richter seems to strike le ton juste again

While I find Hewitt´s capriccious view of the fugue captivating, Richters more serious view is certainly fully justified, and his prelude is without doubt more idiomatic.

[prémont]

I'm familiar with the CMG thread that premont is talking about, and I don't think he was made to look like a fool.  Yes, there were members who were critical, but it was rather mild.  Also, there were at least a couple of members who agreed with premont.

Rather mild. Good to know that you look at it in that way. I must be too sensitive.

[Mandryka]

I've been listening to Bach/Siloti G minor prelude, and to the Bach original on youtube. The Bach/Siloti was championed  years ago Guiomar Novaes and has been taken up by Nelso Freire. I started to get interested in this because I want to explore how authentic baroque performers use dynamic changes, and to see how that carries over on the piano

http://www.youtube.com/v/D1RdTLYja8Y  http://www.youtube.com/v/0r6xktbR6Lg

for contrast I listened to Walcha play the Bach

http://www.youtube.com/v/fnBUehE4fNk


The interesting thing for me is the way the Siloti transcription uses dynamic changes to underline contrasts where the organist uses registration changes. I'm really thinking of the echo like passage after the introduction --1,28 in the Walcha, 1,56 in Noaves.

Also the way she lingers in the intro is quite striking -- Friere does the same. I wonder if that's marked by Siloti, and if so why?

[mc ukrneal]

I've been listening to Bach/Siloti G minor prelude, and to the Bach original on youtube. The Bach/Siloti was championed  years ago Guiomar Novaes and has been taken up by Nelso Freire. I started to get interested in this because I want to explore how authentic baroque performers use dynamic changes, and to see how that carries over on the piano

http://www.youtube.com/v/D1RdTLYja8Y  http://www.youtube.com/v/0r6xktbR6Lg

for contrast I listened to Walcha play the Bach

http://www.youtube.com/v/fnBUehE4fNk


The interesting thing for me is the way the Siloti transcription uses dynamic changes to underline contrasts where the organist uses registration changes. I'm really thinking of the echo like passage after the introduction --1,28 in the Walcha, 1,56 in Noaves.

Also the way she lingers in the intro is quite striking -- Friere does the same. I wonder if that's marked by Siloti, and if so why?

Won't be able to help you much, but what a fascinating comparison! The sound and manipulation of each instrument really send the piece in different directions as it goes on.

[prémont]

I've been listening to Bach/Siloti G minor prelude, and to the Bach original on youtube. The Bach/Siloti was championed  years ago Guiomar Novaes and has been taken up by Nelso Freire. I started to get interested in this because I want to explore how authentic baroque performers use dynamic changes, and to see how that carries over on the piano ..for contrast I listened to Walcha play the Bach

You have to take into consideration, that Walcha wasn´t a genuine historically informed musician,  and that he also retained some more or less romantic habits from the Straube / Ramin school, not the least concerning his use of register changes.

The interesting thing for me is the way the Siloti transcription uses dynamic changes to underline contrasts where the organist uses registration changes. I'm really thinking of the echo like passage after the introduction --1,28 in the Walcha, 1,56 in Noaves.
Also the way she lingers in the intro is quite striking -- Friere does the same. I wonder if that's marked by Siloti, and if so why?

I have not seen Siloti´s score, but I suppose the dynamics (and maybe the lingering as well) are indicated by him. This would be the usual practice with similar arrangements in the romantic tradition. Already Czerny´s arrangement for piano of the Art of Fugue  indicates different dynamic levels as well as crescendo and diminuendo.

[Opus106]

[I've been wondering about this for quite a while and it seems to be somewhat relevant to the preceding posts.]

There are players like Hewitt, Schiff, Richter and Gould whose recordings contain "Bach's" WTC, say, and there are recordings of Bach's works as transcribed by someone else, say Busoni, for the piano. Am I right in assuming that what the first set of pianists are playing are transcriptions? (Just making sure I'm using the right word here.) If so, are we to assume then, that in those cases they are using a standard score (for the piano) as opposed to when it's advertised as Bach-Busoni? (Or does the transcriber's appear only in those cases where (s)he was a famous composer in his or her own right and would make for more sales? )

[prémont]

This webside offers some different versions of BWV 535

http://wn.com/BWV_535

[prémont]

There are players like Hewitt, Schiff, Richter and Gould whose recordings contain "Bach's" WTC, say, and there are recordings of Bach's works as transcribed by someone, say Busoni, for the piano. Am I right in assuming that what the first set of pianists are playing are transcriptions? (Just making sure I'm using the right word here.) If so, are we to assume then, that in those cases they are using a standard score (for the piano) as opposed to when it's advertised as Bach-Busoni? (Or does the transcriber's appear only in those cases where (s)he was a famous composer in his or her own right and would make for more sales? )

I am not quite sure, that I understand your question, but will nevertheless try to answer.

When Hewitt and Schiff release a recording of Bach´s WTC, they use the original harpsichord score, and add the wanted shadings possible on piano while playing. Well they may have made some individual notes in their copy of the score in order to remember all of it.
When Busoni arranged Bach´s music for piano, he added a gallery of performance instructions to the original score as well as notes e.g. octave doublings or harmonies and he released the arrangements for everyone to acquire and play. If a recording is advertised as Egon Petri playing Bach/Busoni, I suppose, that Petri used Busonis additions to Bach´s score. Anything else would make no sense.

[Opus106]

I am not quite sure, that I understand your question, but will nevertheless try to answer.

When Hewitt and Schiff release a recording of Bach´s WTC, they use the original harpsichord score, and add the wanted shadings possible on piano while playing. Well they may have made some individual notes in their copy of the score in order to remember all of it.

Thanks. I think the quoted part above clears things up.

[Antoine Marchand]

I am not quite sure, that I understand your question, but will nevertheless try to answer.

When Hewitt and Schiff release a recording of Bach´s WTC, they use the original harpsichord score, and add the wanted shadings possible on piano while playing. Well they may have made some individual notes in their copy of the score in order to remember all of it.
When Busoni arranged Bach´s music for piano, he added a gallery of performance instructions to the original score as well as notes e.g. octave doublings or harmonies and he released the arrangements for everyone to acquire and play. If a recording is advertised as Egon Petri playing Bach/Busoni, I suppose, that Petri used Busonis additions to Bach´s score. Anything else would make no sense.

Anyway the difference is subtle because if somebody made a score with the exact instructions to follow, for instance, Schiff's performance of the WTC that work could be considered a Schiff's arrangement to play that work on piano, right? And I supposse that's the point of Navneeth.

[Gurn Blanston]

Anyway the difference is subtle because if somebody made a score with the exact instructions to follow, for instance, Schiff's performance of the WTC that work could be considered a Schiff's arrangement to play that work on piano, right? And I supposse that's the point of Navneeth.

Toñio, no, I don't think that. There is a crucial difference, which it that Schiff/Hewitt/Blanston (whoever) made those notes strictly for his/her own purpose, while making a performance. In these days, every single performance of anyone's piece of music can be considered unto itself as "X's Whatever". Busoni, however, made that score not only for himself, but for anyone else who wanted it, and it would then become that person's Bach/Busoni as soon as they played it in performance. No longer Busoni's Bach, so to speak. I certainly am not saying that I love this reality, but I am forced to acknowledge it...

[prémont]

Anyway the difference is subtle because if somebody made a score with the exact instructions to follow, for instance, Schiff's performance of the WTC that work could be considered a Schiff's arrangement to play that work on piano, right? And I supposse that's the point of Navneeth.

Logically spoken every performance of the WTC or another Bach work (even on harpsichord) is a kind of arrangement, considering the sparse performance directives from the composer. But Navneeth used the word "transcription",  and this was the reason why I answered what I did.

[Opus106]

Schiff's performance of the WTC that work could be considered a Schiff's arrangement to play that work on piano, right? And I supposse that's the point of Navneeth.

Actually, I was assuming that all those Bach-pianists were playing from a score that was made specifically for the piano (let's say, the 1919 edition of the WTC for the pianoforte from Co-founder & Co-founder Publishers) rather than playing the notes that were meant for the harpsichord.

[Antoine Marchand]

Toñio, no, I don't think that. There is a crucial difference, which it that Schiff/Hewitt/Blanston (whoever) made those notes strictly for his/her own purpose, while making a performance. In these days, every single performance of anyone's piece of music can be considered unto itself as "X's Whatever". Busoni, however, made that score not only for himself, but for anyone else who wanted it, and it would then become that person's Bach/Busoni as soon as they played it in performance. No longer Busoni's Bach, so to speak. I certainly am not saying that I love this reality, but I am forced to acknowledge it...

Logically spoken every performance of the WTC or another Bach work (even on harpsichord) is a kind of arrangement, considering the sparse performance directives from the composer. But Navneeth used the word "transcription",  and this was the reason why I answered what I did.

When I wrote the previous post I was under the influence of this idea: it's interesting to consider how from the second half of the XVIIIth Century (but specially during the XIXth Century) indications and "performance directives" of scores were progressively growing up. That's one reason why a great part of the work of studies on the realm of HIP performance have consisted in trying to rediscover, for instance, a lot of unspoken musical practices that men of Baroque and previous ages considered implicit in their scores. That said, I think "a proper piano score" is, by definition, considerably more detailed that, for instance, a typical score for harpsichord. Again: a Romantic instrument (like modern piano) at some extent "claims" for a more complete score like those written by a Romantic or modern composer.     

[Mandryka]

Logically spoken every performance of the WTC or another Bach work (even on harpsichord) is a kind of arrangement, considering the sparse performance directives from the composer. But Navneeth used the word "transcription",  and this was the reason why I answered what I did.

So I guess he must have been aware that what he was doing left it open for the performer to vary the ornamentation, phrasing, tempo etc. Dynamics too.

Can I ask a real basic question -- sorry to use you guys like this!

What sort of dynamic effects were possible on baroque harpsichords, organs and clavichords?

[prémont]

... I think "a proper piano score" is, by definition, considerably more detailed that, for example, a typical score for harpsichord. Again: a Romantic instrument (like modern piano) at some extent "claims" for a more complete score like those written by a Romantic or modern composer.     

It all depends upon how much the composer wants to influence the interpretation and how well established the performing traditions in question are. In Bach´s case he relied largely upon the performing traditions. But if he had wanted to give detailled instructions concerning the interpretation, this might have made the scores very complicated and not necessarily less complicated than detailled romantic piano scores.

[prémont]

What sort of dynamic effects were possible on baroque harpsichords, organs and clavichords?

A very relevant question, which I shall try to write something sensible about to morrow, as bedtime approaches at the moment.