Bach on the piano

[Mandryka]

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.

Thanks. I'll need to think about what you've said. Just one point.

Koroliov, in WTC, sounds to me like he used  a quite distinctive touch. Relatively encapsulated sounds for long passages. That's why I singled him out.

[kishnevi]

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

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

Sorry, George, you've been outvoted. 

In answer to your question: Hewitt II,Gould,               Ashkenazy  in that order of preference.  Spacing gives you an idea of how far behind the others I place Ashkenazy.  His WTC lacks the delightful perversity which makes his Partitas interesting.
Harpsichord:  Belder, Egarr.  There's also Levin, but I have yet to listen to it, so it's not really fair to include him.

[George]

Sorry, George, you've been outvoted. 

Surely not the first, nor the last time that will happen.

[Antoine Marchand]

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.

I don't frequently listen to Bach played on piano, but I think Edward Aldwell comes quite close to my idea of a satisfactory interpretation on piano. His touch is light and clear (well articulated, although never staccato), as Hewitt, but he (differently to Hewitt) is able to maintain a basic pulse through a complete movement and his tempi are consistent among the different suites. I don't know if an interpretation could be more HIP oriented, without to betray the own nature of the piano, after all a Romantic instrument.

P.S.: I'm talking about Aldwell's French Suites (Hänssler), the only recording by him that I have.

[Leo K.]

I don't frequently listen to Bach played on piano, but I think Edward Aldwell comes quite close to my idea of a satisfactory interpretation on piano. His touch is light and clear (well articulated, although never staccato), as Hewitt, but he (differently to Hewitt) is able to maintain a basic pulse through a complete movement and his tempi are consistent among the different suites. I don't know if an interpretation could be more HIP oriented, without to betray the own nature of the piano, after all a Romantic instrument.

I also don't generally listen to Bach played on piano, but once in a while I get out Glenn Gould's Bach, originally my introduction to Bach's keyboard works.

Just yesterday I played Gould's WTC book 1 and enjoyed it immensely. Makes me want to hear Bach on piano more than I do.

I've had Tureck's 1st account of WTC for many years, and listen once in awhile. I love her sensibility and appreciate the meditative quality of her performance.  She is a whole other world from any pianist I've heard.

[jlaurson]

Thanks. I'll need to think about what you've said. Just one point.

Koroliov, in WTC, sounds to me like he used  a quite distinctive touch. Relatively encapsulated sounds for long passages. That's why I singled him out.

I was working off Koroliov's Goldberg Variatons (live & Haenssler recording) and some of his recent Tacet Recordings; I sadly don't have his WTC.

[nesf]

I'm curious, what are people's opinions of Glenn Gould's second recording (I think, 1983 I believe) of the Goldberg Variations? It was my introduction to the work so it's kind of stuck in my head as how "it's supposed to be done" but I do wonder if people view it as a travesty or as beautiful as I find it.

[Bulldog]

I was working off Koroliov's Goldberg Variatons (live & Haenssler recording) and some of his recent Tacet Recordings; I sadly don't have his WTC.

I urge you to get Koroliov's WTC.  His Goldbergs is mighty fine, but the WTC is on an even higher level.

[Bulldog]

I'm curious, what are people's opinions of Glenn Gould's second recording (I think, 1983 I believe) of the Goldberg Variations? It was my introduction to the work so it's kind of stuck in my head as how "it's supposed to be done" but I do wonder if people view it as a travesty or as beautiful as I find it.

It's my favorite Gould version, more of thinking man's version than the '55'.

By the way, the '83' is not his second recording, but the fourth (at least).  The first is on a CBC disc, second is the '55', third is a live one on Sony performed in Salzburg.

[Mandryka]

I was working off Koroliov's Goldberg Variatons (live & Haenssler recording) and some of his recent Tacet Recordings; I sadly don't have his WTC.

And I don't have his Goldbergs!!

AoF is very good too -- certainly my favourite piano version from the ones I know, whatever premont says.

[jlaurson]

And I don't have his Goldbergs!!

AoF is very good too -- certainly my favourite piano version from the ones I know, whatever premont says.

His ARIA puts me to sleep, and then the Variations just build upon each other to become completely irresistible. An amazing GV.
It will be (or has already been) re-issued by that "Great Piano Performances" label that licenses across the field some famous and some obscure insider-tip piano recordings that have become hard to come by. Interesting concept and so far I've found some real hidden gems in their catalog.

Have you heard Koroliov's most recent Bach -- four-hand performances with his wife? A terrific disc. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/12/best-recordings-of-2011-1-10.html (including sound snippet)

Gould "IV" (Although it is usually, commonly referred to as his "second" recording) is from 1982, unless he came back from the grave. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/04/goldberg-variations.html
It's a beautiful recording, so very different from '55. Both have managed to become classics because a.) Gould was stupendous in many ways and b.) very neatly post-mortem-marketable.

[nesf]

Gould "IV" (Although it is usually, commonly referred to as his "second" recording) is from 1982, unless he came back from the grave. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/04/goldberg-variations.html
It's a beautiful recording, so very different from '55. Both have managed to become classics because a.) Gould was stupendous in many ways and b.) very neatly post-mortem-marketable.

It's my favorite Gould version, more of thinking man's version than the '55'.

By the way, the '83' is not his second recording, but the fourth (at least).  The first is on a CBC disc, second is the '55', third is a live one on Sony performed in Salzburg.

Thank you both for the correction.

[Mandryka]

Have you heard Koroliov's most recent Bach -- four-hand performances with his wife? A terrific disc. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/12/best-recordings-of-2011-1-10.html (including sound snippet)

Yes. I have it and I like it. It's true that the touch he uses there isn't the same as what I hear on the WTC record. That's interesting and I hadn't noticed it before.

Have you heard Dezso Ranki and  Edit Klukon playing Bach and Bach/Kurtag duets? They gave a concert in London recently and I have a bootleg of a concert in Budapest a couple of years ago. Let me know if you want me to let you have the FLACs.

Does anyone know if there are any other piano transcriptions of Clavier Ubung 3 on record (other than Koroliov)? Surely Busoni must have transcribed some of the choral preludes there.

[Coopmv]

Surely not the first, nor the last time that will happen.

I thought you liked the WTC by Gulda at some point.  At any rate, I have the Philips twofer as well.

[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.

I've since searched this thread and found some comments. 

[Coopmv]

I've since searched this thread and found some comments. 

Buy the second set as well, it is not gonna to break your bank ...

[prémont]

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)?

Touch and articulation can not really be separated. Articulation is practised touch and how the notes are tied to or separated from each other. By articulating the notes differently this is - along with agogic stressing (= rubato) - the only way you on a harpsichord can demonstrate the rhythm and the relative hierarchy of the notes in a musical subject or phrase. Because if you on a harpsichord play all the notes in a phrase articulated in the same way  - e.g. in an unbroken legato, you can neither perceive the rhythm nor the relative importance of the notes. On a piano on the other hand you can play an unbroken legato and still tell the rhythm and the relative importance of the notes you want to by stressing the good and the important notes dynamically. Isn´t the piano then a better instrument, since it more easily can tell the musical course? Certainly not, as this way of playing lends the music a totally different character far from the harpsichord idiom. The articulation and agogic is an all important part of the baroque harpsichord style and can not be replaced by dynamic means without breaking the style of the music. This is the reason why I do consider Bach on piano not just to be a question of taste but even a question of style. It is of course possible, even it is difficult, to play Bach on the piano in a stylish way (with stylish articulation and agogics and sparse or no dynamic stressing), but in practice it is rarely heard, because the pianists since the emergence of the piano have got this dynamic stressing way of playing reflexive in their blood. The most stylish Bach on piano I have heard - even if still far from ideal from that point of view - is from Ivo Janssen. But why play Bach on the piano at all, when we have got the harpsichord, which is the ideal instrument for this music?

[Mandryka]

Thanks for all of that. I'm not sure I understand but I need to think about it.

There are two main reasons why I listen to Bach on piano. One is that some of the piano transcriptions are in themselves interesting and rather nice pieces of music. I think Busoni's Goldbergs are like that. And some of Kurtag's.

And second I think that some of the pianists who play Bach are very good musicians. I think Richter's suites, for example, are just very good performances in their own right: the question of style notwithstanding. The same thought, by the way applies to pre HIP harpsichord performances - those early Leonhardt recordings which I love so much, and Walcha's English suites, and the first Landowska record of English Suite 2.

As you know, the idea that the role of the performer is to recreate something resembling the composer's conception of how the music would have been played is a relatively new  idea.  Unfortunately, the majority of Bach on piano on record is played in a romantic way. Sentimental piano isn't my thing.Fortunately not all Bach on piano is sentimental, even though it may not be HIPstyle.  Gould, Richter, Koroliov, Vedernikov, Grinberg, Weissenberg don't always  play sentimentally

I'm interested in 21st century Bach -- a way of playing the music which makes it sound not like a product of an outmoded world, even if that world is Bach's own. Not just a beautiful decoration or a historical curiosity, but something which speaks to me and my concerns now.  Walcha's  intense sewing machine comes close to being just that -- as does, for reasons I can't articulate,  that intense, unified and varying wall of sound in Zacher's AoF. And some of the pieces in Richter's WTC -- especially towards the end of Book 1.

Maybe the music is sufficiently strong to do this, if allowed to speak for itself. That's what you would say I think, premont. I'm coming round to that opinion myself 

[Bulldog]

But why play Bach on the piano at all, when we have got the harpsichord, which is the ideal instrument for this music?

Unfortunately, there are many folks who don't like the sound of a harpsichord.

[mc ukrneal]

Unfortunately, there are many folks who don't like the sound of a harpsichord.

That's me. I find the sound irritating. And I find the piano an ideal instrument for Bach too, but I don't mind if others prefer the harpsichord.