Your Preferred Bach Pianist

[Scarpia]

AFAIK, the 'grand piano' is an instrument that was wanted by the romantic epoch and its artists, for its capability to create a larger sound, suited for creating larger dynamic differences, suited for larger concert halls et cetera.

If a 'grand piano' player is trying to force the instrument to make it sound smaller, with a more direct and short way of articulation and phrasing, the result sounds ofter rather artificial, IMO.

So, if you want to play Bach on a 'grand piano', I think the artist should realize that he's playing on a different instrument than Bach had in mind, and not wilfully try to make it sound like an early 18th century instrument.

Of course a modern non-romantic composer can use this instrument. Why not?
But he/she will certainly be aware of the possibilities of the instrument, and use it in a proper way for his/her piece. Bach could not do that, because he did not know this instrument.

To me, 'good' interpretations of Bach on a 'grand piano' have to sound grander and larger and with more dynamic differences than Bach could have possibly thought of if a keyboard instrument was concerned (other than the organ). It's not such a silly or pedant thing to call that 'more romantic'. But IMHO, it's the best way to play Bach on a piano. In most cases, as I suggested before, a so called semi-HIP interpretation on a piano sounds artificial. If you want to try to recreate a baroque-Bach, then it's a good idea to use a harpsichord, clavichord or another keyboard instrument of his time. If you want to create a Bach mixed with your own ideas and possibilities of your own time, then a piano is a good instrument to use. It will be less Bach, but this doesn't necessarily mean a lesser Bach (depending on the interpeter, and on the preferences of the listener).

I can't say that any of this agrees with my listening experience.  I don''t see anything artificial about a piano played without legato, or any reason why Bach on a Piano should be "romantic," whatever that is supposed to mean in this context.  Although some fraction of Bach's music for clavier seems to be directly suited to harpsichord, the essence of a great deal of it is multiple melodic lines in counterpoint, which can be performed with any number of instrumentation, including piano. 

Personally, I am willing to admit that the harpsichord admits a transparency that is hard to achieve on a piano, but after a rather short interval the sound of the harpsichord becomes unbearable to my ears.

[Marc]

Of course one can play the piano non-legato.

But on a piano I can get tired of pianists who play like listen, I avoid legato and I will be avoiding legato all night long, for this is HIP on piano.

In general, I think that we do not disagree that much.

Above that: to me, the 'sound world' of the two instruments are very different. But, since you use words like 'unbearable' if the harpsichord is mentioned, I think we do agree on that one, too!



So, here's our quarrel: we have other preferences!
Music lovers like you, Sarge and James prefer the piano.
Pedants like Que, Premont and I (said the fool) prefer the harpsichord.



Bach couldn't care less, I'm sure. And if I'm wrong with that assumption, then I couldn't care less myself. I'm alive and Bach is dead ..... though his music isn't, either played on a piano, harpsichord or scrubbing board.

[Scarpia]

But on a piano I can get tired of pianists who play like listen, I avoid legato and I will be avoiding legato all night long, for this is HIP on piano.

I don't know who you might be thinking of here, maybe Gould.  The best who perform on piano make up for the less transparent sound of the instrument by using its greater potential for varying tone and articulation to distinguish the voices.  I spend a lot more time listening to recordings of piano, although I probably have just as many recordings employing harpsichord.

[Marc]

I don't know who you might be thinking of here, maybe Gould. 

[Scarpia]

Does that mean yes?  Gould isn't really HIP, really more like PIP (psychosis informed performance). 

[Marc]

Does that mean yes?  Gould isn't really HIP, really more like PIP (psychosis informed performance).

But he knew that a Bach composition needed a different way of playing than most 19th century works. In a way Gould was pre-HIP, but he did not want to leave the piano (probably for reasons well-known to you). So he even tried to change and prepare the piano to make it sound more 'Bach' or 'baroque' (Inventionen und Sinfonien) or 'cembalo like'. It didn't work at all, of course.
I don't like his way of playing a piano Bach very much, but he's unique, one has to admit. So I'll give him a cordial hum for that.

[Bulldog]

The voting has closed.  GMG's top ten Bach pianists are:

1.   Gould
2.   Schiff   
3.   Koroliov - Tureck - Feinberg - Hewitt - Richter
8.   Fischer - Perahia
10. Fellner

An excellent list although I am a little surprised with Schiff's position.

Thanks for voting - let's do it again sometime.

[Scarpia]

The voting has closed.  GMG's top ten Bach pianists are:

1.   Gould
2.   Schiff   
3.   Koroliov - Tureck - Feinberg - Hewitt - Richter
8.   Fischer - Perahia
10. Fellner

An excellent list although I am a little surprised with Schiff's position.

Yes, how did Gould sneak past?

[Franco]

Ah, Bach's intent - good luck with that one.  There are times when I'm nut sure of my own intent, never mind the intent of a German composer three hundred years ago.

I doubt Bach would care what instrument were used as long as the player of the instrument understood the music and played it very well.

[Bulldog]

Yes, how did Gould sneak past?

For better or worse, there was no sneaking.  Gould overwhelmed the competition.  Let's all hum his praises.

[Scarpia]

For better or worse, there was no sneaking.  Gould overwhelmed the competition.  Let's all hum his praises.

Yes, hum away.  bup...bup...bup...bup...bup...bup

[Bulldog]

I doubt Bach would care what instrument were used as long as the player of the instrument understood the music and played it very well.

I suppose many of us have our notions as to what Bach would like or not like, but I'm the only one who gets it consistently right.

[Josquin des Prez]

It didn't work at all, of course.

It worked on Bach. Didn't work on anything else.

[Marc]

It worked on Bach. Didn't work on anything else.

OK. You win.
I will change it in in my opinion , it did not work at all. Artificial semi-baroque playing on an artificial fake-baroque instrument. I do not like that a bit, not even in Bach.

[Bulldog]

Calling Gould's playing and musicianship semi-baroque, fake or artificial is just so off the mark, simply that. He never strived to make his instrument sound like something it wasn't, his touch, tone and whole approach to the instrument was genius ... and he never played all music the same way either (even Bach), he approached different music and pieces in different ways from a playing &-or recording perspective, always willing to try new things and be creative. His Bach is legendary of course, but he recorded great things in other music too. i.e. Prokofiev, Ravel, Debussy, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Wagner, Hindemith, Byrd, Gibbons, Strauss, Bizet, Brahms, Haydn etc.

Totally agree.  So far, Marc and Scarpia are members of the Anti-Gould Militia.  Any other members?

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm partial to some of his recordings but i could easily do without the autism nonsense. I guess i'm in the middle.

[Marc]

I'm partial to some of his recordings but i could easily to without the autism nonsense. I guess i'm in the middle.

Count me in with that 'judgement'. AFAIK, I'm definitely not part of any Militia.
(Only perhaps of the pro-Bach Militia, but I generally offer my love for him in a rather mild way .... or don't I? )

Maybe I'm also a bit prejudiced against Gould, because lots of his fans tend to talk and write about him like he's some demi-God and the 'only' one who really grabbed the beauty and complexity of Bach's keyboard music. Which, IMO, is utter nonsense.
Oops, that sounded rather militant ....

[Antoine Marchand]

Count me in with that 'judgement'. AFAIK, I'm definitely not part of any Militia.
(Only perhaps of the pro-Bach Militia, but I generally offer my love for him in a rather mild way .... or don't I? )

Yes, I have noticed that: a kind of Musical Third Way... 

[Marc]

Well no one here called him a demi-God etc. He was a great musician & player tho, can't be argued... his many recordings are full of wonderful things, and his 'fans' also include many top musicians from abroad.

James, you are delivering some funny posts, but your claims do neither impress nor convince me.

1. Gould was a great musician: can't be argued.
2. Gould plays a great Prokofiev, Ravel, et cetera.
3. He has got many top musicians as fans.

The same goes for many other musicians, too. If these things can't be argued, why do we bother to discuss, argue and talk in boards like these? Are you bovvered yourself if Beethoven claims that Händel was the greatest composer of all time?
Btw: I did not refer to Gould as an interpreter of other composers than Bach. If someone claims that a certain pianist plays a terrific Prokofiev et al, I'm certainly not convinced that automatically his Bach is terrific, too. Are you?

[Marc]

Yes, I have noticed that: a kind of Musical Third Way... 

Shhh .... hush!