Bach on the piano

[Verena]

To me, Ivo Janssen sounds good on some movements but he doesn't on some others. Since there are some nice cembalo recordings, it's difficult to appreciate piano performances of the English Suites.

Thanks of reminding me of Janssen. I had almost forgotten him, but now I vaguely remember liking his performances of the English Suites. Have to relisten. I agree about the harpsichord recordings. Unfortunately to this day I tend to prefer the sound of a piano to that of a harpsichord, although I find the interpretations on harpsichords often much more interesting than those by pianists. Indeed if I didn't have a subjective ,,problem" with the sound, I'd probably listen to harpsichord versions almost exclusively.

[Mandryka]

To me, Ivo Janssen sounds good on some movements but he doesn't on some others. Since there are some nice cembalo recordings, it's difficult to appreciate piano performances of the English Suites.

Gieseking?

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Gieseking?

I checked it on YT a few times. It seems to me the music is soft. It reminded me of Hewitt a little.

[milk]

Gould played Handel Suites (and I think also some other works) on the harpsichord. I guess the harpsichord is easier to play for a pianist like Gould, who imitated the sound of a harpsichord (to some extent) even when playing the piano. Can't think of many pianists who are equally good at the harpsichord and the piano, but Lubimov might be a candidate.

Is Gould good? I haven't tried him in a while because he turned me off so much years ago. I somehow doubt it's easy for him both to get good results on the instrument and to get over his ego. That's the comparison to Xiao who is impressive in a superficial way? But I could be wrong. I haven't listened to a complete Xiao recording and it's been years since I've listened to any Gould. ETA I just had a second to sample a tiny bit of Gould. It sounds like computer programmed music. But it does remind me of what Gould's style is. I suspect that's what he thought harpsichord music was supposed to be? I don't know, maybe I know nothing. 😀

[Verena]

Is Gould good? I haven't tried him in a while because he turned me off so much years ago. I somehow doubt it's easy for him both to get good results on the instrument and to get over his ego. That's the comparison to Xiao who is impressive in a superficial way? But I could be wrong. I haven't listened to a complete Xiao recording and it's been years since I've listened to any Gould. ETA I just had a second to sample a tiny bit of Gould. It sounds like computer programmed music. But it does remind me of what Gould's style is. I suspect that's what he thought harpsichord music was supposed to be? I don't know, maybe I know nothing. 😀

I don't enjoy Gould's version of the Handel suites at all. As you say, it sounds like a recording produced by some computer programme. Over the years my enthusiasm for Gould in general has waned a bit, but there are still some recordings which are really exceptional IMHO, for example the live Sweelinck (!), Goldberg Variations etc in Salzburg, or the Byrd / Gibbons recording. What a shame he stopped giving live performances rather early in his career, I usually prefer those to the studio recordings. Maybe one could call Gould superficial, but in a sense a case could also be made he is actually quite the opposite: he dissects the music, with devastating results in both possible senses. Xiao's interpretations may be somewhat pianistic (interventionist?) to the extent described by Howard, but this approach is probably quite commonly found in piano interpretations of baroque music. As a result, her interpretations strike me as far more middle-of-the-road. Maybe superficial is a word with too many rather different senses and one should really elaborate what exactly is meant by this (a psychological attitude on the part of the pianist; a particular approach to the work/composer; etc).

[milk]

I don't enjoy Gould's version of the Handel suites at all. As you say, it sounds like a recording produced by some computer programme. Over the years my enthusiasm for Gould in general has waned a bit, but there are still some recordings which are really exceptional IMHO, for example the live Sweelinck (!), Goldberg Variations etc in Salzburg, or the Byrd / Gibbons recording. What a shame he stopped giving live performances rather early in his career, I usually prefer those to the studio recordings. Maybe one could call Gould superficial, but in a sense a case could also be made he is actually quite the opposite: he dissects the music, with devastating results in both possible senses. Xiao's interpretations may be somewhat pianistic (interventionist?) to the extent described by Howard, but this approach is probably quite commonly found in piano interpretations of baroque music. As a result, her interpretations strike me as far more middle-of-the-road. Maybe superficial is a word with too many rather different senses and one should really elaborate what exactly is meant by this (a psychological attitude on the part of the pianist; a particular approach to the work/composer; etc).

I think that's fair. Superficial is gratuitous. She plays a certain way which has a lot of skill involved. I'm sure it feels right to her and it's appealing. I feel like I'm almost going to say the wrong thing about Gould. He seems like he's got an obsessive way of dealing with music. It may work out well for some or sometimes. I watched a documentary about him a very long time ago and it showed international fans, people in many countries, just gaga over him. I think this obsessive quality to his musicianship strikes people, gives him an aura of genius that people expect, and are surprised by, paradoxically. Nearly every movie that includes Bach on piano uses Gould and it's immediately recognizable except it never blends into the movie, it always sticks out, like a player piano in a funeral parlor. My rant is coming to an end. I've come to find Gould as antonymous with enjoyment of Bach's music.

By the way, I'm still really looking for three or four really great piano versions of AOF.

[Verena]

I think that's fair. Superficial is gratuitous. She plays a certain way which has a lot of skill involved. I'm sure it feels right to her and it's appealing. I feel like I'm almost going to say the wrong thing about Gould. He seems like he's got an obsessive way of dealing with music. It may work out well for some or sometimes. I watched a documentary about him a very long time ago and it showed international fans, people in many countries, just gaga over him. I think this obsessive quality to his musicianship strikes people, gives him an aura of genius that people expect, and are surprised by, paradoxically. Nearly every movie that includes Bach on piano uses Gould and it's immediately recognizable except it never blends into the movie, it always sticks out, like a player piano in a funeral parlor. My rant is coming to an end. I've come to find Gould as antonymous with enjoyment of Bach's music.

By the way, I'm still really looking for three or four really great piano versions of AOF.

Completely agree, except that of course this is not ranting but to the point.  Have you tried Gould's live Goldbergs from Salzburg (I think 1959)? I do enjoy that recording, even though I find his other Bach often almost unlistenable nowadays.
I don't really know to what extent this has been discussed before. But have you tried Koroliov's Art of the Fugue? The one which Ligeti claims he would "listen to on a desert island until my last breath"? Then there is Sokolov's live version, unfortunately complete with coughs and other extraneous noises. I also enjoy Schaghajegh Nosrati's and Alice Ader's versions very much

[milk]

Completely agree, except that of course this is not ranting but to the point.  Have you tried Gould's live Goldbergs from Salzburg (I think 1959)? I do enjoy that recording, even though I find his other Bach often almost unlistenable nowadays.
I don't really know to what extent this has been discussed before. But have you tried Koroliov's Art of the Fugue? The one which Ligeti claims he would "listen to on a desert island until my last breath"? Then there is Sokolov's live version, unfortunately complete with coughs and other extraneous noises. I also enjoy Schaghajegh Nosrati's and Alice Ader's versions very much

I'm going to track these down today. Koroliov wasn't available back when it was first recommended but it is streaming now so today is the day! Thanks!

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I only know it on piano.  I enjoy Angela Hewitt on the piano in Bach.

You may enjoy the contrast between the Hewitt and the Ivo Janssen.

[DavidW]

Franco, while I like Hewitt in the English Suites... try Perahia.  He opened the door for me in these works.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

This may be a fun recording for those who want something different.

[Atriod]

I don't enjoy Gould's version of the Handel suites at all. As you say, it sounds like a recording produced by some computer programme. Over the years my enthusiasm for Gould in general has waned a bit, but there are still some recordings which are really exceptional IMHO, for example the live Sweelinck (!), Goldberg Variations etc in Salzburg, or the Byrd / Gibbons recording. What a shame he stopped giving live performances rather early in his career, I usually prefer those to the studio recordings. Maybe one could call Gould superficial, but in a sense a case could also be made he is actually quite the opposite: he dissects the music, with devastating results in both possible senses. Xiao's interpretations may be somewhat pianistic (interventionist?) to the extent described by Howard, but this approach is probably quite commonly found in piano interpretations of baroque music. As a result, her interpretations strike me as far more middle-of-the-road. Maybe superficial is a word with too many rather different senses and one should really elaborate what exactly is meant by this (a psychological attitude on the part of the pianist; a particular approach to the work/composer; etc).

As more time passes I continue to cool on Gould's JSB recordings except for a couple, which who knows might wane as well. I suspect a big reason they are ones I reach for often is it was the Bach I had on piano for a good 10 years when I had a fixed budget for music. There is still a certain comfort food quality about hearing him given how well worn in they are for me. I also hear Gould transposing an almost ultra modern quality to his Bach, there is a sharpness to Gould I have heard replicated by no one. Even in pieces that are clearly quite upbeat that angularity never disappears (I guess some exceptions like his second recording of the Aria), almost like caricature harpsichord.

On that style of dissecting the music with works like WTC I find pianists like Andrei Vieru or Koroliov much more satisfying than Gould. I have yet to find a "perfect" cycle of WTC on piano with regard to tempos other than Edwin Fischer.

Edit: pianist I want to hear record WTC is Chiyan Wong

[Atriod]

Not related to Gould, I know there are many admirers of Peter Hill's WTC here. I'll continue listening to them but so far I am not finding much that is too special about it. I bring him up because I have been very impressed with him in the French Suites, I can't recall anyone mentioning them. They're at the very top of my favorites for complete cycles.

[Mandryka]

One of the most Fischer-like is one that's hard to get and I've only acquired most recently, thanks to help from someone here. It is Émile Naoumoff's  \Or that's what I thought when I heard his Book 2 -- though I haven't actually checked that response by digging out the Fischer!

I haven't heard Pescia.

Not related to Gould, I know there are many admirers of Peter Hill's WTC here. I'll continue listening to them but so far I am not finding much that is too special about it. I bring him up because I have been very impressed with him in the French Suites, I can't recall anyone mentioning them. They're at the very top of my favorites for complete cycles.

It would be good if you'd say a little about what sort of stylistic differences you're noticing  between his WTC and French suites.

[prémont]

It would be good if you'd say a little about what sort of stylistic differences you're noticing  between his [Peter Hill's] WTC and French suites.

So would I say too, because I don't see any important differences.

[Mandryka]

I can imagine that someone might think that an emphatic style, with piano effects used to underline elements of the music, was more suited to WTC than to the French Suites. I don't share that view, but it is a possible line of thinking.

I was interested to hear Alessandro Corti suggest that there is very little difference in intrinsic musical style between the French and the English suites -- about 25 seconds into this presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEgd_SCahRw&t=0s&ab_channel=NetherlandsBachSociety

[Atriod]

It would be good if you'd say a little about what sort of stylistic differences you're noticing  between his WTC and French suites.

Hard to say as I'm not good at these kind of metaphysical descriptors. Pianistically WTC and French Suites are not that dissimilar. I'll attempt to take a crack at the former. I was listening to a small section of WTC II and marveling at how Vieru played the E major fugue with a sort of vertical reaching quality. I then switched to Peter Hill and it came across as a bit one dimensional and flat. I know Vieru utilizes some more dynamic range but for me it is still very tasteful. The second thing about Hill's WTC that leaves it sounding a bit studied and lacking in spontaneity is when adding ornamentation he plays them at a relatively fixed tempo.

All around IMO I don't feel this sort of Leonhardt style translates all that well to WTC being played on piano however nor do I think excesses like what many piano players do is necessary either. And I do have Leonhardt's DHM WTC I and II as one of my desert island albums.

Another reason why I might really like Hill in French Suites is aside from Gould and Rübsam all the complete cycle piano recordings I have are "Bach for babies" style I do not think Hill sounds studied in the French Suites. There are more qualities to it than this that I'll have to think about and come back to why I like them so much.

[Mandryka]

Hard to say as I'm not good at these kind of metaphysical descriptors. Pianistically WTC and French Suites are not that dissimilar. I'll attempt to take a crack at the former. I was listening to a small section of WTC II and marveling at how Vieru played the E major fugue with a sort of vertical reaching quality. I then switched to Peter Hill and it came across as a bit one dimensional and flat. I know Vieru utilizes some more dynamic range but for me it is still very tasteful. The second thing about Hill's WTC that leaves it sounding a bit studied and lacking in spontaneity is when adding ornamentation he plays them at a relatively fixed tempo.

All around IMO I don't feel this sort of Leonhardt style translates all that well to WTC being played on piano however nor do I think excesses like what many piano players do is necessary either. And I do have Leonhardt's DHM WTC I and II as one of my desert island albums.

Another reason why I might really like Hill in French Suites is aside from Gould and Rübsam all the complete cycle piano recordings I have are "Bach for babies" style I do not think Hill sounds studied in the French Suites. There are more qualities to it than this that I'll have to think about and come back to why I like them so much.

The features in the Hill that you don't like are the ones which make what he does attractive to me, and the features in the Vieru which you do like are the ones which make me have reservations about him

 Subjectivity everywhere!

[Atriod]

The features in the Hill that you don't like are the ones which make what he does attractive to me, and the features in the Vieru which you do like are the ones which make me have reservations about him

 Subjectivity everywhere!

Indeed Howard. I have caught up on the last 10 pages or so of posts I hadn't read, there are many people in those posts that like Hill. I want to listen to the WTC and contrast them against the French Suites carefully before I write more. I am almost certain you and I are more in agreement about the dynamics than not (my post expressing my distaste for Trifonov in AoF), just not the same extent. One quality I look at in WTC is that spirituality that weaves in and out of all of Bach's music, how a performer handles dynamics is just one aspect to this. Something else leading to some superficiality is taking a more legato heavy approach (Hewitt, Schiff on Decca, some Perahia). If a WTC recording can cause me start thinking about the cantatas then this is a good sign.

For French Suites if forced to get rid of all other recordings the one I would keep is Bob van Asperen to see where I am coming from.

[Atriod]

To me the French suites are too life affirming in their conception for this kind of interpretation.

Who are your favorites on piano and harpsichord?