Angela Hewitt argues for playing some pieces by Bach on a modern piano.

[Mandryka]

http://tinyurl.com/ldymqjw

[Mandryka]

What do you pianists think about the idea that, in the chromatic fantasy and toccata "You can get more . . . brilliance if you use the right touch . . .  on the piano"?

When she says that, in the Goldbergs,  "you just get a lot more color" on piano compared with harpsichord, is that true? I note that Wanda Landowska, discussing Chopin, opined that the harpsichord is a "reservoir of sharp colours, flute, strings, nasal oboes, bagpipes, contrabass"

Is it really true that the textures achievable on piano are clearer and sharper than on harpsichord? (See the discussion of the toccata.)

And what does it mean to say that the cpt in AoF are "singng style?" That they're violinistic, articulated into long phrases rather than short speech like cells? is that true for AoF? Why can't you play them on a harpsichord like that?

[Sammy]

What do you pianists think about the idea that, in the chromatic fantasy and toccata "You can get more . . . brilliance if you use the right touch . . .  on the piano"?

When she says that, in the Goldbergs,  "you just get a lot more color" on piano compared with harpsichord, is that true? I note that Wanda Landowska, discussing Chopin, opined that the harpsichord is a "reservoir of sharp colours, flute, strings, nasal oboes, bagpipes, contrabass"

Is it really true that the textures achievable on piano are clearer and sharper than on harpsichord? (See the discussion of the toccata.)

My answer is "no" to each of the above.  To be honest, I pay little attention to advocates of Bach on the piano or Bach on the harpsichord because there is usually self-interest in the comments.  Hewitt is a pianist who loves playing Bach, so I would expect her to exercise subjectivity in her analysis.

Overall, I prefer Bach on harpsichord.  However, there have been so many wonderful Bach pianists such as Gould, Gulda, Koroliov, etc.  I love listening to them all and really detest the notion of anyone trying to make a case for one instrument over the other.

[Cosi bel do]

I think Ms. Hewitt should have said all that 30 or 40 years ago if she wanted to interest people. Now, such debates are closed.

We can hear Bach on the harpsichord, as close as possible to what he really intended (but always somewhat as a reconstruction, with so many hypothesis and questions behind every interpretation).
Or we can hear Bach on the piano, which is actually the only way to be able to hear some of the greatest artists play Bach (among living pianists, I don't think there's any hope Martha Argerich or Grigory Sokolov will switch to harpsichord in the near future, and if they did I'm not sure I would really want to hear it). And I prefer to hear Edwin Fischer or Richter play Bach on the piano than not listening to them at all...

[Mandryka]

If BD's right, an experienced and highly acclaimed concert pianist, a Bach specialist, OBE and Ph.D from multiple universities, is making claims about her speciality which are false. Not tastes and values, but claims about the nature of the instruments in fact, objectively.


Either BD's wrong, or Angella Hewitt is a fool, or Angella Hewitt is a fraud.

[Jo498]

While I might overall prefer Bach on the piano (Discobolus mentioned some of the reasons) I think that there are quite a few pieces that work better on harpsichord. E.g. the chromatic fantasy and other pieces with lots of  arpeggios or  in "fantasy" style. Also some with lost of ornamentation. The ornamentation is partly a reaction of the quick decay of the harpsichord's tone so often it can sound unidiomatic or awkward on the modern piano. "sounds more brilliant" is not an objective evaluation. I think trills, quick arpeggios etc. sound more "glittering" (so maybe more "brilliant") on a harpsichord. As far as transparency (which is not even in fugues an end in itself, I think) is concerned this seems to depend more on the artist than the instrument.

OF COURSE all these are only some aspects and there are others in favor of the piano (better sustaining tone in slower movements, dynamic shadings etc.)

I am not an expert in other baroque keyboard works, but in Handel, Scarlatti, Rameau, Couperin I tend to prefer the harpsichord more clearly. Cliché or not, quite a bit of Bach's keyboard stuff is "abstract" enough that the instrument does not matter as much.

[Cosi bel do]

If BD's right, an experienced and highly acclaimed concert pianist, a Bach specialist, OBE and Ph.D from multiple universities, is making claims about her speciality which are false. Not tastes and values, but claims about the nature of the instruments in fact, objectively.


Either BD's wrong, or Angella Hewitt is an fool, or Angella Hewitt is a fraud.

Who is BD ?

Anyway, I don't think being an OBE or having multiple honorary degrees preserves anyone to make objectionable assumptions in an interview (and the real fool, by the way, is the person who chose to ask her for "5 pieces that sound better on the piano", a theme which Hewitt may have been to polite to question).
I don't think that it is entirely possible to distinguish between claims and tastes or opinions when an artist speaks of his/her instrument.

Angela Hewitt may be a Bach specialist (which does only mean she plays a lot of Bach, but there are certainly more Bach specialists in the world than we need to know on record, not to say we don't in her case !) but she is not a musicologist, or a historian of music, or instruments. She hasn't developed her thoughts about how Bach sound more "brilliant" on piano in a very lenghty essay and I think these are really just expressions of her taste for her own instruments that she made without giving it more importance than she thought the interview would have. And I don't blame her ! An artist is not a musicologist and people playing well and writing interesting things are rare, as both activities need to dedicate a good deal of your time to it (Rosen might be the only true example of that, and even him had to kinda choose at one point).
In part, I find a little interest in interviewing musicians. What they have to say, when they speak about their own choices of interpretation at least, is rarely as interesting and understandable as their interpretation of even the shortest piece of music (of course, reading Markevitch on his own life, or Gardiner on Bach, is still of interest, but this is not exactly the same thing). And that's true even of the most "scholarly" musicians. I mean, hear Leonhardt or Harnoncourt speak about interpretation, you'll get part of what they say, you'll learn a lot of informations. Then hear them play or conduct a piece : you'll understand instantly everything they tried to tell with their complex explanations.

By the way, I don't know Angela Hewitt's recordings well at all. I didn't like what I heard much (the chromatic fantasy at least, I think) but I'll need to check all that again. I never intended to say she is wrong in what she says, I just think what she says has no importance at all, and is essentially the sign she lives quite disconnected of research and of recent trends in interpretation. Which might be just what she needs to perform her own art...

[Pat B]

If BD's right, an experienced and highly acclaimed concert pianist, a Bach specialist, OBE and Ph.D from multiple universities, is making claims about her speciality which are false. Not tastes and values, but claims about the nature of the instruments in fact, objectively.


Either BD's wrong, or Angella Hewitt is an fool, or Angella Hewitt is a fraud.

Who is BD, and which "objective" claims are you talking about?

[Sammy]

If BD's right, an experienced and highly acclaimed concert pianist, a Bach specialist, OBE and Ph.D from multiple universities, is making claims about her speciality which are false. Not tastes and values, but claims about the nature of the instruments in fact, objectively.


Either BD's wrong, or Angella Hewitt is an fool, or Angella Hewitt is a fraud.

Or none of the above.  Hewitt is entitled to her opinions, and that's what they are.  So she is not a fool or fraud, just a pianist defending playing Bach on the piano.

[Mandryka]

Who is BD, and which "objective" claims are you talking about?

BullDog. I forgot he changed his name to Sammy, which happens to have been the name of my dog, a German Shepherd, when I was a kid.

Well look, you're all avoiding something which is interesting, and I was hoping for some enlightenment about the instruments when I started this thread.

AH claims that you can get a lot more color on piano compared with harpsichord. That's a pretty objective claim I think. Ditto for that the idea textures achievable on piano are clearer and sharper than on harpsichord. And that you can get more  brilliance on piano if you use the right touch compared with harpsichord. Or  indeed that it's best to play music which sings on piano. These are all, I think, really ideas about the objective characteristics of the instruments.

If I'd have thought this was just a pianist defending her corner, I wouldn't have bothered. But she makes some claims I've not heard before, or at least not heard often. And which I've never examined.

[prémont]

AH claims that you can get a lot more color on piano compared with harpsichord. That's a pretty objective claim I think. Ditto for that the idea textures achievable on piano are clearer and sharper than on harpsichord. And that you can get more  brilliance on piano if you use the right touch compared with harpsichord. Or  indeed that it's best to play music which sings on piano. These are all, I think, really ideas about the objective characteristics of the instruments.

I think. she is completely wrong. However I have not read the article.

Objectively one can articulate clearer and sharper on a harpsichord - because of its faster action.

And what is brilliance? Tones rich in high partials do I think. If I am right, the harpsichord is an easy winner.

What does it mean, that the music sings? Does this imply long frases of legato? But you can not play real legato neither on the harpsichord nor the piano, because the tone fades away rather fast on both instruments. On both instruments you can only suggest some kind of singing style, which also is more stylish than too persistent legato.

[Gurn Blanston]

AH claims that you can get a lot more color on piano compared with harpsichord. That's a pretty objective claim I think. Ditto for that the idea textures achievable on piano are clearer and sharper than on harpsichord. And that you can get more  brilliance on piano if you use the right touch compared with harpsichord. Or  indeed that it's best to play music which sings on piano. These are all, I think, really ideas about the objective characteristics of the instruments.

If I'd have thought this was just a pianist defending her corner, I wouldn't have bothered. But she makes some claims I've not heard before, or at least not heard often. And which I've never examined.

That's not an objective claim, it is a very subjective one. It is her perception that the tone produced by a piano is more colorful. Also, there is no way that the texture of a piano is is either clearer or sharper. A piano tone is produced by striking a string with a padded hammer. A harpsichord produces a tone by plucking a string directly with a hard but flexible object, whatever the modern equivalent of a quill might be.

What she is actually saying, no matter how she clothes it out, is that she prefers the sound of a piano to the sound of a harpsichord. And that's her right.

As for all the playing effects she can accomplish on the piano; it wasn't there in the music to begin with, the music wasn't written to encompass it, so big deal. IMO.

[Mandryka]

That's not an objective claim, it is a very subjective one. It is her perception that the tone produced by a piano is more colorful. Also, there is no way that the texture of a piano is is either clearer or sharper. A piano tone is produced by striking a string with a padded hammer. A harpsichord produces a tone by plucking a string directly with a hard but flexible object, whatever the modern equivalent of a quill might be.

What she is actually saying, no matter how she clothes it out, is that she prefers the sound of a piano to the sound of a harpsichord. And that's her right.

As for all the playing effects she can accomplish on the piano; it wasn't there in the music to begin with, the music wasn't written to encompass it, so big deal. IMO.

As far as I read it she's saying that effects which are only possible on piano suit the examples of Bach's moving better.

Perceptions can be objective. It's objective that snow looks white and grass looks green in ordinary light -- if anyone denied that we'd say he had a problem with his vision, or his grasp of the words "white" and "green." This is a big area in metaphysics and epistemology.

[Mandryka]

I think. she is completely wrong. However I have not read the article.

Objectively one can articulate clearer and sharper on a harpsichord - because of its faster action.

And what is brilliance? Tones rich in high partials do I think. If I am right, the harpsichord is an easy winner.

What does it mean, that the music sings? Does this imply long phrases of legato? But you can not play real legato neither on the harpsichord nor the piano, because the tone fades away rather fast on both instruments. On both instruments you can only suggest some kind of singing style, which also is more stylish than too persistent legato.

Indeed this was exactly my reaction.

[Gurn Blanston]

As far as I read it she's saying that effects which are only possible on piano suit the examples of Bach's moving better.

Perceptions can be objective. It's objective that snow looks white and grass looks green in ordinary light -- if anyone denied that we'd say he had a problem with his vision, or his grasp of the words "white" and "green." This is a big area in metaphysics and epistemology.

white is white, no argument

tone color is what you think it is, it may not be what Ken thinks it is, or vise-versa.

That's not really a big metaphysical leap, I don't think. 

[Sammy]

BullDog. I forgot he changed his name to Sammy, which happens to have been the name of my dog, a German Shepherd, when I was a kid.

Well look, you're all avoiding something which is interesting, and I was hoping for some enlightenment about the instruments when I started this thread.

AH claims that you can get a lot more color on piano compared with harpsichord. That's a pretty objective claim I think. Ditto for that the idea textures achievable on piano are clearer and sharper than on harpsichord. And that you can get more  brilliance on piano if you use the right touch compared with harpsichord. Or  indeed that it's best to play music which sings on piano. These are all, I think, really ideas about the objective characteristics of the instruments.

If I'd have thought this was just a pianist defending her corner, I wouldn't have bothered. But she makes some claims I've not heard before, or at least not heard often. And which I've never examined.

Then you shouldn't have bothered, because she WAS just defending her corner.

If I remember correctly, Andras Schiff once made comments similar to Hewitt's; that's what you can expect from pianists who play Bach.  After all, I wouldn't expect Hewitt, Schiff or any other pianist to dump on their own instrument.

Just for the record, I don't agree with Hewitt.  With a shorter decay time and sharper contours, the clarity of Bach's counterpoint is more pronounced on the harpsichord.  As for color  and brilliance, I also place the harpsichord first.  Of course, the performer's artistry and ability to put across what's intended rules the day.

[Pat B]

Perceptions can be objective. It's objective that snow looks white and grass looks green in ordinary light -- if anyone denied that we'd say he had a problem with his vision, or his grasp of the words "white" and "green." This is a big area in metaphysics and epistemology.

There is an objective definition of "green." Nowadays that can even be put into numbers, wavelength and frequency. "Brilliant" and "colorful" are more subjective.

I've heard Hewitt lecture on piano vs. harpsichord before. I have no desire to repeat that experience. I'll grant her expertise on the piano, but that doesn't turn her opinions into facts, and her comments on the harpsichord were both condescending and shallow.

[Jo498]

I cannot load the article (slow and patchy connection). As I said, I think there is music that to me seems rather obviously fitting better to the harpsichord. I personally tend to find the modern piano more able to play cantabile, but I have conversed with harpsichordophiles who had very strong opinions of the opposite, so this seems rather subjective as well.

There is a little youtube spot with Schiff talking about Bach's WTC and also trying to demonstrating that the "sighing" character of two-note pairs in the subject of the b minor fugue of WTC 1 could only be accomplished on the piano (with dynamics). Of course the piece would also have been played on a clavichord back then which can do dynamics but cannot fill a room larger than a medium-sized living room.

[Sammy]

There is an objective definition of "green." Nowadays that can even be put into numbers, wavelength and frequency. "Brilliant" and "colorful" are more subjective.

I've heard Hewitt lecture on piano vs. harpsichord before. I have no desire to repeat that experience. I'll grant her expertise on the piano, but that doesn't turn her opinions into facts, and her comments on the harpsichord were both condescending and shallow.

And that's why it's a stupid idea to to flaunt the piano over the harpsichord for baroque music.  Best for the performer to simply state that Bach works well on the piano and harpsichord.  At the end of the day, Hewitt's Bach performances will sound the same no matter what statements of comparison she makes.  And how does she sound?  In my view, pretty good but nothing for the ages.

[Mandryka]

I see she's giving a fortepiano concert soon. I don't plan to go but I was slightly tempted -- she's certainly popular in London, as you'll see if you click "Book Now"

https://www.wigmore-hall.org.uk/whats-on/202406031300