Bach on the piano

[SonicMan46]

In English approximately:
Do not become hypnotized that much by the things you see, that you miss the things you do not see.

Yes, another radiological equivalent - roughly quoted below:

If you see an obvious abnormality, ignore it, and look at the rest of the image first!

[prémont]

If you see an obvious abnormality, ignore it, and look at the rest of the image first!

More or less my philosophy.

[Antoine Marchand]

I use to say:
Do not become hypnotized that much by the things you see, that you miss the things you do not see.

Yes, another radiological equivalent - roughly quoted below:
If you see an obvious abnormality, ignore it, and look at the rest of the image first!

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, right? 

[Opus106]

[jlaurson]

I use to say:

Stir dig ikke så blind på de ting du ser, at du overser de ting du ikke ser.

Som er fint råd.

Speaking of Bach on the Piano - Heard Alexandre Tharau again, last night... and although in Scarlatti and Debussy, mostly, one of the encores was Bach of course. Sublime as few other things are.

[Mandryka]

This pianists' practice of playing Bach music staccato -- you hear it in Gould and Tureck.

Where does it come from? Why do they do it?


By the way I've been playing a lot of French Suite 4 and I've been very taken by Richter on the Stradivarius label. I think even premont would like it, except maybe the sarabande. What he does with the fast music  in the second half  has to be heard to be believed. And like Cates he adds a little prelude. Well worth trying in my opinion.

The question about staccato came about as a result of listening to Gould of course. I'd forgotten just how outrageous and original his interpretation is.

[Oldnslow]

While it isn't Bach, the best piano recording I have heard in a long time is by Lisa Smirnova on ECM of the Handel 8 Great Suites. Great music, wonderful performances.

[Mandryka]

I might well try that. For Handel on piano the two things I really like are Eduard Erdmann playing  Suite 4 and Richter live in Hungary playing Suite 5, though all Richter's studio records of Handel  are very much my sort of thing.  Has anyone heard Perrahia's Handel? I've herd some positive things said about it.

[prémont]

This pianists' practice of playing Bach music staccato -- you hear it in Gould and Tureck.
Where does it come from? Why do they do it?
The question about staccato came about as a result of listening to Gould of course. I'd forgotten just how outrageous and original his interpretation is.

The harpsichord is a plucked instrument, the action is relative fast, when you activate the key, you press it, and the player has got a relative good contact with the string.
The piano is a percussion instrument, the action is relative slower, when you activate the key you rather hit it, and the player has relative less contact with the string.
Non legato touch, which is the normal baroque harpsichord touch [whatever Jens says], feels natural on a harpsichord, but it is difficult to realise on a piano, where legato touch for technichal reasons feels more easy and natural. Now many pianists know and/or feel, that legato touch is less suited for baroque music, and they try to play non legato on the piano. But this is very difficult to realise, and consequently they play too much staccato touch in order to avoid too much legato touch.

[Leon]

I own Angel Hewitt's first recording of the WTC, from ~1998, and I like it.  Is her second performance from 2009 so different that it is worthwhile investing in?  One thing I've read is that her choice of instrument in the second set is "lighter" and some people prefer it.

[Bulldog]

I might well try that. For Handel on piano the two things I really like are Eduard Erdmann playing  Suite 4 and Richter live in Hungary playing Suite 5, though all Richter's studio records of Handel  are very much my sort of thing.  Has anyone heard Perrahia's Handel? I've herd some positive things said about it.

I've only said negative things about Perahia's Handel; Richter is much better.

[kishnevi]

What do folks here think of Gulda's WTC?  Barnes and Noble has it on a pair of Philips Duos that tempt me every time I walk in there, but so far I've resisted..  Should I continue to resist or give in?

[George]

What do folks here think of Gulda's WTC?  Barnes and Noble has it on a pair of Philips Duos that tempt me every time I walk in there, but so far I've resisted..  Should I continue to resist or give in?

I say resist. Who else do you have on piano?

I like Richter, Feinberg and Tureck (DG.) Feinberg I like the most.

[Bulldog]

What do folks here think of Gulda's WTC?  Barnes and Noble has it on a pair of Philips Duos that tempt me every time I walk in there, but so far I've resisted..  Should I continue to resist or give in?

There's no reason to resist.  I think it's a great piano set, about on the level of Gould.

[jlaurson]

There's no reason to resist.  I think it's a great piano set, about on the level of Gould.

Sound isn't always top-notch (easily as good as Gould, though). But very strong set; nicely played... not at all 'crazy' as one might expect from Gulda's persona.

[Mandryka]

The harpsichord is a plucked instrument, the action is relative fast, when you activate the key, you press it, and the player has got a relative good contact with the string.
The piano is a percussion instrument, the action is relative slower, when you activate the key you rather hit it, and the player has relative less contact with the string.
Non legato touch, which is the normal baroque harpsichord touch [whatever Jens says], feels natural on a harpsichord, but it is difficult to realise on a piano, where legato touch for technichal reasons feels more easy and natural. Now many pianists know and/or feel, that legato touch is less suited for baroque music, and they try to play non legato on the piano. But this is very difficult to realise, and consequently they play too much staccato touch in order to avoid too much legato touch.

I think that's an interesting reply, and is probably part of the picture.

How essential is baroque harpsichord-like touch? Is it, in your opinion, as essential as dynamic restraint? Do you really lose anything which is really key to the music if you play too legato (like I guess Edwin Fischer or Schnabel) or too staccato (like I guess Gould)?

I also wonder which pianists are most successful at playing with baroque touch. Koroliov? Richter? Janssen (who I have hardly heard -- have you found the recordings continue to be interesting?)

[Bulldog]

Sound isn't always top-notch (easily as good as Gould, though). But very strong set; nicely played... not at all 'crazy' as one might expect from Gulda's persona.

Yes, the sound isn't very good and rather annoying at times.  However, like Gould, Gulda rises above the soundstage.

[Bulldog]

How essential is baroque harpsichord-like touch? Is it, in your opinion, as essential as dynamic restraint? Do you really lose anything which is really key to the music if you play too legato (like I guess Edwin Fischer or Schnabel) or too staccato (like I guess Gould)?

From my view, nothing is essential except a high level of artistry.  Neither Gould nor Tureck are "too" staccato, and a guy like Edward Adwell is not too legato.

[jlaurson]

I think that's an interesting reply, and is probably part of the picture.

How essential is baroque harpsichord-like touch? Is it, in your opinion, as essential as dynamic restraint? Do you really lose anything which is really key to the music if you play too legato (like I guess Edwin Fischer or Schnabel) or too staccato (like I guess Gould)?

I also wonder which pianists are most successful at playing with baroque touch. Koroliov? Richter? Janssen (who I have hardly heard -- have you found the recordings continue to be interesting?)

Well, depending on who you talk to: it is essential (not "how")... or it isn't important at all.

For me it comes down to this: If you are going to play Bach on the Piano -- an act of transcription, in a way -- then you might as well acknowledge the instrument you are playing, its strengths and those elements that it cannot do, compared to the 'instrument of intent'.

There are pianists who play the piano 'harpsichord-like'; often with overdoing the staccato bit, as premont mentions. Whether the wrong instrument used as a pseudo-harpsichord is desirable, well... that's at least questionable. Some recordings of Gould highlight that because of his playing. To some degree because he brushed down the felt hammers of his Yamaha... and sometimes he actually used a tack-piano (harsh name for the instrument that was once a Steinway) like he does in this YouTube clip: http://youtu.be/4SDpIyVhZKA

The result is neither piano nor harpsichord, and you could say it combines the worst of both...
But in its own way it becomes something wonderful and new, an odd glassy sound. Anyway... there are pianists who try to emulate the harpsichord in various ways (i.e. ornamentation, where the slow decay of the piano gives the interpreter much less room to play with), but usually it makes harpsichordists' hair stand on end... faux-register shifts and all. Judging from his Goldberg Variations, V.Feltsman is one of the chaps who uses the piano thus... and I rather like it, although I'd not make it my first choice. Koroliov plays Bach decidedly pianistically, without lushing about romantically like Perahia (no WTC) or Barenboim. Lifschitz is another, but he also has no WTC to his name.

Do you loose something playing Bach too legato? Well, yes... but you can also gain as much, if you do it right. That's the crunch question for all sorts of transcriptions. Bach was an inveterate transcriber and his music works better than anyone's transcribed... whether harpsichord -> piano or violin - > harpsichord or orchestra - > Kazoo. A good musician is what you need, and a good idea of what she or he is doing. Transcribing first (say: from harpsichord to piano) and then trying to undue the transcription by playing the piano as if it wasn't one is probably not the easiest path to success, though. And the innate rhythm that you too much legato muddles can be retained by a good musician in any case, as long as he has a compelling pulse.

From my view, nothing is essential except a high level of artistry.  Neither Gould nor Tureck are "too" staccato, and a guy like Edward Adwell is not too legato.

Ah, damn. Yes, basically I meant to say that. 

[Mandryka]

From my view, nothing is essential except a high level of artistry.  Neither Gould nor Tureck are "too" staccato, and a guy like Edward Adwell is not too legato.

Essential for playing the music in a way which is, as far as we know, consistent with how Bach  may have conceived it. That's what I meant.

I like Gould too. And Tureck. And Edwin Fischer and Schnabel. But the question of consistency with historical practice seems not uninteresting in Bach's case at least, just because he was a great composer, and so how  he conceived the performance of his own music may be one  good way to play it.



I have tried to write the above without falling into the intentionalist fallacy. But it's late and I may have failed