# Best or Favorite interpreter of Bach's "Keyboard" works.



## TrevBus

For years I wouldn't buy any of Bach's works for the Keyboard(piano)but Gould. It took me a long time to hear others but Gould. Then I saw Andras Schiff. WOW!!! Then I heard Rosalind Tureck. Double WOW!!!!! Both open my ears to new ideas of these works. While I am still high on Gould, I must confess I am leaning more towards Tureck as probably the best interpreter of the works. What do you think? Any others not mentioned?


----------



## JCarmel

I really love several recordings by Gould and Schiff and Richter & have several cds by Murray Perahia & enjoy his playing. I'm afraid that I am not acquainted with Rosalyn Tureck's Bach...but I'll start putting that right, right now?!


----------



## kv466

This may bring on a bit of deja vu for you but,...Glenn Gould.


----------



## TrevBus

kv466 said:


> This may bring on a bit of deja vu for you but,...Glenn Gould.


Good one and yes a bit "all over again". I believe there will be a lot of Gould votes.


----------



## Itullian

I have Schiff's complete Decca set and Hewitt's complete set. I love them both.


----------



## Guest

For piano recordings, Perahia is my favorite, especially for the Goldberg Variations. For harpsichord I really enjoy Masaaki Suzuki.


----------



## Ukko

There are many, many recordings of Bach's keyboard works, including many by people who didn't/don't specialize in Bach, or even in the Baroque. One of the better known names is Weissenberg, who often included a Bach partita in his recitals. Bach's music makes up a large part of most harpsichordist's repertoire, along with Scarlatti, because there is so much good stuff there.

And I'm not even going to mention Loesser and Schepkin... oops.


----------



## TrevBus

DrMike said:


> For piano recordings, Perahia is my favorite, especially for the Goldberg Variations. For harpsichord I really enjoy Masaaki Suzuki.


For me, when it comes to Bach and harpsichord it's IGOR KIPNIS, EVERTIME.


----------



## mmsbls

Some performers play Bach on the piano while others play the harpsichord. I have never really enjoyed the sound of harpsichord as a solo instrument, but I know many people feel strongly that Baroque works should only be played on harpsichord. I'd appreciate some thoughts on why I should open up to the solo harpsichord for Bach (and others).


----------



## TrevBus

mmsbls said:


> Some performers play Bach on the piano while others play the harpsichord. I have never really enjoyed the sound of harpsichord as a solo instrument, but I know many people feel strongly that Baroque works should only be played on harpsichord. I'd appreciate some thoughts on why I should open up to the solo harpsichord for Bach (and others).


Very good question and probably an excellant discussion. I can only answer in simple layman terms. It comes down the sound of the instrument you want to hear. While I enjoy the solo harpsichord, I enjoy more the sound of the "modern" piano. Some will say and I cannot disagree w/that, the true Bach sound comes from the harpsichord. Fair enough. However, as I said, it comes down to what you what to hear and enjoy. Simple, I know but I am not educated enough in music to answer any other way.


----------



## Mandryka

mmsbls said:


> Some performers play Bach on the piano while others play the harpsichord. I have never really enjoyed the sound of harpsichord as a solo instrument, but I know many people feel strongly that Baroque works should only be played on harpsichord. I'd appreciate some thoughts on why I should open up to the solo harpsichord for Bach (and others).


The real reason is that some of the most interesting and exciting Bach playing comes from harpsichordists and organists. They have developed the best ideas about how to play Bach's music, from the point of view of articulation, counterpoint and rhythm. These ideas have been very slow to perculate down to pianists. If you limit yourself to pianists, you are only rarely, if ever, hearing how good Bach's music can be.


----------



## kv466

Tureck?,...really? I hardly remembered the name because I probably haven't heard her in twenty years but I had the same "double wow" experience: At how terribly bad it was. It seemed to take her ten minutes just to get through the aria and it was all chopped up. And I'm talking about a '95 performance which is after a supposedly illustrious career and she's using sheet music????(????????????) No respect for anyone who performs in from of a live audience with sheet music. To me,...simply unacceptable; especially in a solo recital. Sure, she can play Bach and actually has a nice touch to it but adds way too much of her own personality and the lack of virtuosity is appalling. It was kinda sad and not because of age because my boy, Earl (who couldn't play Bach, either), died at well over 90 years old and was a virtuoso til the day the light took him. Anyway,...

For mere mortals, I enjoy Simone Dinnerstein.


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> Tureck?,...really? I hardly remembered the name because I probably haven't heard her in twenty years but I had the same "double wow" experience: At how terribly bad it was. It seemed to take her ten minutes just to get through the aria and it was all chopped up. And I'm talking about a '95 performance which is after a supposedly illustrious career and she's using sheet music????(????????????) No respect for anyone who performs in from of a live audience with sheet music. To me,...simply unacceptable; especially in a solo recital. Sure, she can play Bach and actually has a nice touch to it but adds way too much of her own personality and the lack of virtuosity is appalling. It was kinda sad and not because of age because my boy, Earl (who couldn't play Bach, either), died at well over 90 years old and was a virtuoso til the day the light took him. Anyway,...
> 
> For mere mortals, I enjoy Simone Dinnerstein.


I admit that I don't care for Tureck's playing, but... in 1995 she was pretty feeble. Few people age as well as Wild did. I figure she recorded because some folks who could get it done asked her to.

I too like Dinnerstein's Bach, but she certainly has 'a mind of her own'. I suspect that fellow member _Mandryka_ (I know him from rmcr, a civilized gentleman) does not care for her interpretations.


----------



## annie

When listening to Bach's keyboard works I prefer,
keyboard concertos:
p: Perahia h: Kipnis/Munchinger and Kipnis/Marriner

toccatas:
p: Hewitt h: Gilbert

2&3 Part Inventions
Hewitt & Schiff

partitas:
p: Perahia h: Rousset

English & French suites & WTC
p: Hewitt h: Gilbert

goldberg:

p: Perahia h: Hantai

French ov:
Schiff & Hewitt

chromatic fant.&fugue
p: Schiff h: Gilbert

Italian concerto:
p: Perahia h: Gilbert

the art of fugue:
h: Moroney

If I was forced for only one, it'd be Perahia by a very long distance


----------



## Blancrocher

kv466 said:


> Tureck?,...really? I hardly remembered the name because I probably haven't heard her in twenty years but I had the same "double wow" experience: At how terribly bad it was. It seemed to take her ten minutes just to get through the aria and it was all chopped up. And I'm talking about a '95 performance which is after a supposedly illustrious career and she's using sheet music????(????????????) No respect for anyone who performs in from of a live audience with sheet music. To me,...simply unacceptable; especially in a solo recital. Sure, she can play Bach and actually has a nice touch to it but adds way too much of her own personality and the lack of virtuosity is appalling. It was kinda sad and not because of age because my boy, Earl (who couldn't play Bach, either), died at well over 90 years old and was a virtuoso til the day the light took him. Anyway,...


Tell us what you really think! But seriously, I think you should cut a musician in her 80s some slack. A lot of the greater virtuosi resort to sheet music towards the end. A performance by Tureck of the Goldberg Variations can be a fine way to spend an evening, all night, and the following morning, in my opinion.


----------



## annie

Mandryka said:


> The real reason is that some of the most interesting and exciting Bach playing comes from harpsichordists and organists. They have developed the best ideas about how to play Bach's music, from the point of view of articulation, counterpoint and rhythm. These ideas have been very slow to perculate down to pianists. If you limit yourself to pianists, you are only rarely, if ever, hearing how good Bach's music can be.


Actually the answer lies within the instruments...fortepiano is literally loudly-softly, which gives the instrument its name, which is the base of musical dynamic. Harpsichord is merely plucking of strings which makes playing loudly or softly _almost_ impossible. Playing a piece composed on and for a, let's say, a non-dynamic instrument on an almost non-existent instrument, fortepiano, brings interpretation question marks regarding the composer's intentions... Technical/technological differences such as this actually extends to a lot later. Considering the primitive piano in Mozart's age especially all his piano concertos must be played _stoccato_, etc.
Personally, I enjoy both practices provided that they convey the ideas of the time...or sth


----------



## annie

kv466 said:


> This may bring on a bit of deja vu for you but,...Glenn Gould.


What's a "Glenn Gould"? :devil:


----------



## kv466

Blancrocher said:


> Tell us what you really think! But seriously, I think you should cut a musician in her 80s some slack. A lot of the greater virtuosi resort to sheet music towards the end. A performance by Tureck of the Goldberg Variations can be a fine way to spend an evening, all night, and the following morning, in my opinion.


Ok, now I feel bad throwing an old lady under the bus!  Just not my thing, Blanch. If it is of any comfort, she is not alone: I feel the same way for just about anyone who attempts Bach. Only other guys I can truly say I like are Feltsman, who is very limited in his virtuosity...and Gulda, who overflows with virtuosity and insight but compared side by side, I'll always stick with Glenn. Unless someone better comes along...highly unlikely, but for me it's all about the music. I couldn't care less who is playing it as long as it is the way I like to hear it.


----------



## Mandryka

annie said:


> Actually the answer lies within the instruments...fortepiano is literally loudly-softly, which gives the instrument its name, which is the base of musical dynamic. Harpsichord is merely plucking of strings which makes playing loudly or softly _almost_ impossible. Playing a piece composed on and for a, let's say, a non-dynamic instrument on an almost non-existent instrument, fortepiano, brings interpretation question marks regarding the composer's intentions... Technical/technological differences such as this actually extends to a lot later. Considering the primitive piano in Mozart's age especially all his piano concertos must be played _stoccato_, etc.
> Personally, I enjoy both practices provided that they convey the ideas of the time...or sth


I'm very fond of Walter Riemer's Art of Fugue on fortepiano. In fact I got a copy of his Goldbergs just last week, I haven't had a chance to hear it yet.

I think that there are some people who are very successful with Bach on a modern piano. Wolfgang Rubsam and Hans Petermandl for instance use agogics really imaginatively. Craig Sheppard too plays counterpoint pretty excitingly in the partitas. Andrew Rangell is well worth hearing too IMO, even though he's not a personal favourite. I even like the old recordings by Charles Rosen.

By the way, which one of Hantai's Goldberg's are you listening to? I like the second most.


----------



## annie

Mandryka said:


> By the way, which one of Hantai's Goldberg's are you listening to? I like the second most.


I prefer the '92 version. Would you agree with me if I use "darker" for the '03 version? The first one is more energetic/faster...I like that in Goldberg. If you agree with "darker", is it a true inference that you like Bach darker?


----------



## Mandryka

Mandryka said:


> I'm very fond of Walter Riemer's Art of Fugue on fortepiano. In fact I got a copy of his Goldbergs just last week, I haven't had a chance to hear it yet.
> 
> I think that there are some people who are very successful with Bach on a modern piano. Wolfgang Rubsam and Hans Petermandl for instance use agogics really imaginatively. Craig Sheppard too plays counterpoint pretty excitingly in the partitas. Andrew Rangell is well worth hearing too IMO, even though he's not a personal favourite. I even like the old recordings by Charles Rosen.
> 
> By the way, which one of Hantai's Goldberg's are you listening to? I like the second most.


Yes that seems right. Darker.

There are two things which I'm most interested in right now. One is how these guys play the counterpoint, how they make the voices relate to each other. The other is the variety of emotions they find in the music. I tend to be not very interested in brilliant virtuoso playing really.


----------



## kv466

Mandryka said:


> I tend to be not very interested in brilliant virtuoso playing really.


Wow,...where's that favorite TC members' quotes thread when you need it?!! 

Yeah, I love movies with bad acting and direction and absolutely love any novice.


----------



## Blancrocher

kv466 said:


> Yeah, I love movies with bad acting and direction and absolutely love any novice.


At last, I've found another fan of Robert Bresson!


----------



## annie

Mandryka said:


> One is how these guys play the counterpoint, how they make the voices relate to each other. The other is the variety of emotions they find in the music.


This is very interesting . You mean performance-wise, don't you? If you are interested in expressive theories and/or emotional expression I happen to have an EEG recording from the hippocampal formation of the emotional brain while playing a defective interval of a counterpoint example (dissonant major seventh replacing the major third consonance) ... and that sort of books to lend you if needed :angel:


----------



## maestro57

I like Gould's Goldberg Variations. When it comes to Bach's WTC I/II, I'd have to give it to harpsichordists Bob van Asperen and Gustav Leonhardt.


----------



## SottoVoce

kv466 said:


> Tureck?,...really? I hardly remembered the name because I probably haven't heard her in twenty years but I had the same "double wow" experience: At how terribly bad it was. It seemed to take her ten minutes just to get through the aria and it was all chopped up. And I'm talking about a '95 performance which is after a supposedly illustrious career and she's using sheet music????(????????????) No respect for anyone who performs in from of a live audience with sheet music. To me,...simply unacceptable; especially in a solo recital. Sure, she can play Bach and actually has a nice touch to it but adds way too much of her own personality and the lack of virtuosity is appalling. It was kinda sad and not because of age because my boy, Earl (who couldn't play Bach, either), died at well over 90 years old and was a virtuoso til the day the light took him. Anyway,...
> 
> For mere mortals, I enjoy Simone Dinnerstein.


It's funny you should say that. Gould called Tureck his only influence, and found her recordings to be the best of his predecessors; he actually liked her for the lack of virtuosity. Richter also used sheet music, but no one serious would say that stops him from being one of the great pianists of the 20th century.


----------



## joen_cph

As a side remark - Richter (1915-1997) only used sheets in his latest years. This site says after 1980, "due to an embarrassing memory lapse", http://trovar.com/str/bio.html , someone else "after a stroke", I read somewhere.


----------



## worov

> Tureck?,...really? I hardly remembered the name because I probably haven't heard her in twenty years but I had the same "double wow" experience: At how terribly bad it was. It seemed to take her ten minutes just to get through the aria and it was all chopped up. And I'm talking about a '95 performance which is after a supposedly illustrious career and she's using sheet music????(????????????) No respect for anyone who performs in from of a live audience with sheet music. To me,...simply unacceptable; especially in a solo recital. Sure, she can play Bach and actually has a nice touch to it but adds way too much of her own personality and the lack of virtuosity is appalling. It was kinda sad and not because of age because my boy, Earl (who couldn't play Bach, either), died at well over 90 years old and was a virtuoso til the day the light took him. Anyway,...


I don't get what is the problem with sheet music.

Clara Schumann was the first pianist who performed all pieces from memory. This means that all performers pre-Clara Schumann used sheet music in their performances. This includes Mozart, Clementi, Beethoven, Haydn and J.S. Bach. You won't say these were bad performers, will you ?

A 1995 performance ? Was it the St Petersburg concert ? This one ?





I must say I like it very much. But that's just me.

As for your comment about virtuosity, I happen to disagree. I'm with Mandryka here. I'm not interested in technique, I'm interested in music. That's completely different. As Kieran said in another thread, speed-typing isn't poetry.


----------



## Mandryka

SottoVoce said:


> It's funny you should say that. Gould called Tureck his only influence, and found her recordings to be the best of his predecessors; he actually liked her for the lack of virtuosity. Richter also used sheet music, but no one serious would say that stops him from being one of the great pianists of the 20th century.


She didn't think very highly of him.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Can *Glenn Gould * be saved beyond all his idiosyncrasies ?with the passing of time ,one can stand back and decide more than 30 years after his death.Please follow this question in my threads at "rarevinyllibrary" thank you.


----------



## worov

> Can Glenn Gould be saved beyond all his idiosyncrasies ?with the passing of time ,one can stand back and decide more than 30 years after his death.


I do think Gould is an interesting musician. I don't mind the grimacing and weird movements he does while playing. It was clear that these were necessary for him to get the sound he wanted to produce. The humming is another story though.

However I don't like his interpretations that much. Especially his Bach interpretations. They are interesting, but they are more Gould than Bach in my opinion.

I do like his Grieg and his Sibelius though. His Mendelssohn is weird just as his Bach. He plays the Songs without words like fugues. Check it out.


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> Some performers play Bach on the piano while others play the harpsichord. I have never really enjoyed the sound of harpsichord as a solo instrument, but I know many people feel strongly that Baroque works should only be played on harpsichord. I'd appreciate some thoughts on why I should open up to the solo harpsichord for Bach (and others).


Bach was if nothing else a pragmatist: all those works designated for Klavier meant, in the words of a colleague and pal of mine, "Whichever plinketly-plonk" was available or in your home.

Many of the Harpsichord purists are either ignorant of (or ignore) the fact that Bach's favorite "plinkety-plonk" Klavier, his being on record as preferring it, was the Clavichord, which does have the capacity for dynamics, loud to soft, and that includes bringing out one line more than another... (as well as, extraordinarily, since the tangent is in direct contact with the string and the action the most basic of levers, _vibrato!_) In brief, that instrument allows for what we call "expressive" playing: a harpsichord affords nearly none of that, any illusion of expressiveness coming from the most subtle rubato instead.

So the Harpsichord argument falls into the abyss, I'm afraid. The reason it is used in HIP performances is that the clavichord is such a quiet instrument that it is really mostly for the user and / or a very few listeners in a rather small and otherwise very quiet room, while the harpsichord has much stronger carrying power.

If you can find it (most likely out of print), Ralph Kirkpatrick recorded the Goldberg Variations on the Clavichord - my only preferred recording of this set of variations on a "plinketly-plonk." Others have recorded the Partitas on Clavichord -- but these recordings are from decades ago.

While I can very much prefer (while not a purist) original instrument performances and recordings, I'm more than convinced that "Bach's intentions" are better met if the keyboard works are played on either clavichord or a piano.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Bach was if nothing else a pragmatist: all those works designated for Klavier meant, in the words of a colleague and pal of mine, "Whichever plinketly-plonk" was available or in your home.
> 
> Many of the Harpsichord purists are either ignorant of (or ignore) the fact that Bach's favorite "plinkety-plonk" Klavier, his being on record as preferring it, was the Clavichord, which does have the capacity for dynamics, loud to soft, and that includes bringing out one line more than another... (as well as, extraordinarily, since the tangent is in direct contact with the string and the action the most basic of levers, _vibrato!_) In brief, that instrument allows for what we call "expressive" playing: a harpsichord affords nearly none of that, any illusion of expressiveness coming from the most subtle rubato instead.
> 
> So the Harpsichord argument falls into the abyss, I'm afraid. The reason it is used in HIP performances is that the clavichord is such a quiet instrument that it is really mostly for the user and / or a very few listeners in a rather small and otherwise very quiet room, while the harpsichord has much stronger carrying power.
> 
> If you can find it (most likely out of print), Ralph Kirkpatrick recorded the Goldberg Variations on the Clavichord - my only preferred recording of this set of variations on a "plinketly-plonk." Others have recorded the Partitas on Clavichord -- but these recordings are from decades ago.
> 
> While I can very much prefer (while not a purist) original instrument performances and recordings, I'm more than convinced that "Bach's intentions" are better met if the keyboard works are played on either clavichord or a piano.


Kirkpatrick also recorded the WTK on the clavichord - I have the recording of Book 1, and love it. The sound is much more appealing to my ears than from a harpsichord.


----------



## PetrB

DrMike said:


> Kirkpatrick also recorded the WTK on the clavichord - I have the recording of Book 1, and love it. The sound is much more appealing to my ears than from a harpsichord.


Such a vastly more expressive instrument, though if you wanted to play and be heard by an audience, the clavichord, sans amplification, and a relatively tiny body, just does not cut it. I think the harpsichord best used as continuo, a little dry percussive texture, yet with the pitch, as combined with other instruments, or for the briefest of solo flights. Beyond that, the monolithic unaltered color (other than its lute stop, if the instrument had one) is severely dulling on the ear.

To hear Bach on a clavichord is, I imagine, a revelation similar to hearing Bach on a piano if you only have the harpsichord as your listening experience.


----------



## annie

DrMike said:


> Kirkpatrick also recorded the WTK on the clavichord - I have the recording of Book 1, and love it. The sound is much more appealing to my ears than from a harpsichord.


One might say that harpsichord is the very antithesis of clavichord. Expressiveness of that instrument is very rare to find. It was still German's favorite "home" instrument at the time of Bach. It's understandable that it wasn't preferable in the courts as it should be very hard to hear, let alone the concerts. But I find it hard to understand why in today's studio technology we don't have clavichord recordings. I'm not an engineer to have an opinion on recording techniques but then again the first thing that comes to my mind is we don't have many clavichordists around. At the end of the day, I find "piano wasn't there when Bach was, so let's use clavichord or harpsichord or whatever" too simplistic for both Bach's and art's sake. There should be a lot more aspects to consider...


----------



## Mandryka

annie said:


> One might say that harpsichord is the very antithesis of clavichord. Expressiveness of that instrument is very rare to find. It was still German's favorite "home" instrument at the time of Bach. It's understandable that it wasn't preferable in the courts as it should be very hard to hear, let alone the concerts. But I find it hard to understand why in today's studio technology we don't have clavichord recordings. I'm not an engineer to have an opinion on recording techniques but then again the first thing that comes to my mind is we don't have many clavichordists around. At the end of the day, I find "piano wasn't there when Bach was, so let's use clavichord or harpsichord or whatever" too simplistic for both Bach's and art's sake. There should be a lot more aspects to consider...


I can hardly believe he used an authentic clavichord it sounds so good, I guess it must have been very seriously modified and modernised. I quite like Kirkpatrick too, he reminds me of Walcha, except more colourful. A nit stiff though.

If you're into clavichord thers's a record which Leonhardt made of a Boehm suite which is a real faourite of mine. I'm having a hard time thinking of other examples in Bach that have particularly impressed me. Leonhardt recorded a French Suite on Clavichord too, by the way. If someone can let me have a download of Chorzempa's WTC, which used clavichord for some of the music, I'd be very happy. I've never found it for sale anywhere. Hogwood recorded some Bach on clavichord, but I don't like it.

Rubsam's touch on the modern piano seems particularly inspired by clavichord - colouful, intimate.

By the way the thread asked about keyboard music, and so far the discussion has steered away from the king of keyboard instruments, the organ.


----------



## annie

Mandryka said:


> If someone can let me have a download of Chorzempa's WTC, which used clavichord for some of the music, I'd be very happy. .


Let me check my Chorzempa this evening. Though I believe I'd remember if I had anything on him other than organ.


----------



## annie

Mandryka said:


> By the way the thread asked about keyboard music, and so far the discussion has steered away from the king of keyboard instruments, the organ.


I thought about it while I was writing my first response but the poster only mentions pianists so I guess only piano comparison was meant...

Recently, I've decided to keep 4 sets and I won't try another one anymore...my two favorites are Foccroulle and Alain's third with Walcha and Rogg on the side as a respect for their contributions to my music appreciation


----------



## annie

Mandryka said:


> If someone can let me have a download of Chorzempa's WTC, which used clavichord for some of the music, I'd be very happy.


Unfortunately I don't have it


----------



## Mandryka

Well there is a copy for sale but it's more than £200. 

Re organ, if I think about what I've enjoyed over the past four months or so, there's been Kei Koito's Art of Fugue, Helmut Weinberger's Trio Sonatas, and Rubsam's Leipzig Chorales on Naxos. All these things through spotify.


----------



## PetrB

joen_cph said:


> As a side remark - Richter (1915-1997) only used sheets in his latest years. This site says after 1980, "due to an embarrassing memory lapse", http://trovar.com/str/bio.html , someone else "after a stroke", I read somewhere.


Earlier, Richter was constantly insecure, keeping the score, or scores, laid out on a table backstage, especially in full length recitals: he would pour over them before going onstage to perform, and pour over the second half during the intermission.

Later, alcohol will take that toll, and alcoholism was there, not just a little.


----------



## PetrB

Mandryka said:


> .... By the way the thread asked about keyboard music, and so far the discussion has steered away from the king of keyboard instruments, the organ.


I took the OP literally, i.e. Klavier is keyboard, which Bach designated on all works for harpsichord, clavichord, or relations (but one, that I know of, below on that) and otherwise, used Orgel (organ) to designate pedal organ.

There is a question on the four duets, BWV 802-805. Some musicologists believe they were written for a two manual organ without pedals, and not "Klavier."


----------



## Blancrocher

PetrB said:


> Earlier, Richter was constantly insecure, keeping the score, or scores, laid out on a table backstage, especially in full length recitals: he would pour over them before going onstage to perform, and pour over the second half during the intermission.
> 
> Later, alcohol will take that toll, and alcoholism was there, not just a little.


You're right that he was a nervous performer, given to frantic preparation--and conflicting accounts of his practice regimen (he claimed at various times to spend 3 hours per day, but was also known as a workhorse). Richter apparently memorized Book 2 of the WTC in a single month, and soon after rapidly mastered the first. It was common for him to learn such ambitious chunks of repertoire quickly in order to tour with it--and then to drop it like a hot potato. He seems to have played the WTC constantly until audiences started to like it!

I love his WTC--especially in some of the longer and more complex fugues, he finds (or makes!) amazing passages of poetry. I can hardly listen to anyone else in the 4th p&f from book 1, for example--with those big hands of his, he occasionally plays an improbable group of notes all at once. My one regret of his recording is that he doesn't observe all of Bach's repeats, especially in some key parts of book 2--which is odd given his outrage at Gould missing repeats in the Goldbergs.


----------



## PetrB

Blancrocher said:


> You're right that he was a nervous performer, given to frantic preparation--and conflicting accounts of his practice regimen (he claimed at various times to spend 3 hours per day, but was also known as a workhorse). Richter apparently memorized Book 2 of the WTC in a single month, and soon after rapidly mastered the first. It was common for him to learn such ambitious chunks of repertoire quickly in order to tour with it--and then to drop it like a hot potato. He seems to have played the WTC constantly until audiences started to like it!
> 
> I love his WTC--especially in some of the longer and more complex fugues, he finds (or makes!) amazing passages of poetry. I can hardly listen to anyone else in the 4th p&f from book 1, for example--with those big hands of his, he occasionally plays an improbable group of notes all at once. My one regret of his recording is that he doesn't observe all of Bach's repeats, especially in some key parts of book 2--which is odd given his outrage at Gould missing repeats in the Goldbergs.


A concert pianist pal has 200 concerti in memory, all the Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Reger, Busoni, Medtner, and on and on and on. That is "Just" the concertante repertoire, with all of Liszt, Chopin, etc ad infinitum, also well in store, though he would not be "comfortable," he could dust any one of them off within two weeks and give a performance no one with the highest standards would be able to criticize badly. He is a bit more extraordinary, but considering the specialized animal which is the actual big-league concert pianist, I think a little slack when performing the Goldberg Variations for a master class (Turck, eighty, gnarled, but still Very Present) for example, ought to be cut just a wee bit of slack 

I heard of another pianist who decided her constant go to daily workout was to play the Chopin Ballades in all the keys... she became so adept at this that she had to write down the original key in a cribbed note to herself whenever she was going to perform one or more of them, so erased in memory and her ear was the original key.

Ashekenazy has just about "played it all" across the board... meaning at one time, he had each and all of that memorized.

Apart from being able to play at that level, and consistently, the addition of a more than phenomenal musical memory is "the" other requirement of the concert pianist.

Extraordinary stuff, indeed, but very real for the very few.


----------



## annie

PetrB said:


> A concert pianist pal has 200 concerti in memory, all the Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Reger, Busoni, Medtner, and on and on and on. That is "Just" the concertante repertoire, with all of Liszt, Chopin, etc ad infinitum, also well in store, though he would not be "comfortable," he could dust any one of them off within two weeks and give a performance no one with the highest standards would be able to criticize badly. He is a bit more extraordinary, but considering the specialized animal which is the actual big-league concert pianist, I think a little slack when performing the Goldberg Variations for a master class (Turck, eighty, gnarled, but still Very Present) for example, ought to be cut just a wee bit of slack
> 
> I heard of another pianist who decided her constant go to daily workout was to play the Chopin Ballades in all the keys... she became so adept at this that she had to write down the original key in a cribbed note to herself whenever she was going to perform one or more of them, so erased in memory and her ear was the original key.
> 
> Ashekenazy has just about "played it all" across the board... meaning at one time, he had each and all of that memorized.
> 
> Apart from being able to play at that level, and consistently, the addition of a more than phenomenal musical memory is "the" other requirement of the concert pianist.
> 
> Extraordinary stuff, indeed, but very real for the very few.


ah, I KNOW I KNOW!!! I know a legend on this subject about Artur Rubinstein! May I tell, please, may I may I?

I don't see why memorizing matters to you my princess :devil:


----------



## PetrB

annie said:


> ah, I KNOW I KNOW!!! I know a legend on this subject about Artur Rubinstein! May I tell, please, may I may I?
> 
> I don't see why memorizing matters to you my princess :devil:


1.) Do tell!

and

2.) What?


----------



## annie

Actually it's not a legend. I've read in one of his own books. Because of a mandatory repertoire change, it was going to be his first performance of Franck's Symphonic variations during a world tour with Wallenstein. He was handed the sheet the morning they got on the train(I want to say from Prague to Byrno in Czech Republic), he practiced it on his lap on the train and played it by heart that evening

You have to follow my posts


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Simone Dinnerstein :she 's is new to me ,however it seems her no frill game is dispensed with every musicological evidence


----------



## Schumann

For harpsichord definitely Pieter-Jan Belder and for the piano Glenn Gould.


----------



## chopinesque

I was enamored by the HIP school of thought a few years ago and was vehemently opposed to the idea of Bach on grand piano/ fortepiano (to my own detriment) and my favourite performer was Wanda Landowska. Then I came across Sviatoslav Richter playing WTC on Youtube. I was converted instantaneously! I had heard him tossing off fiendishly difficult works like child's play with an unmatched ability to project the meaning of a work like an eagle surveying the sky without losing any details. But nothing could have prepared me for his Bach- it was transcendental. One has to listen to him to believe it. He is the best Bach interpreter in my book now. Others in order of prefernce are- Rosalyn Tureck, Maria Pires, Maria Yudina, Glenn Gould and Murray Perahia. I don't like Andras Schiff's Bach- too mechanical and dry for me. Another vastly underrated player was Emil Gilels. His Bach renditions on the EMI Great Pianists of the 20th Century discs are great.


----------



## Blancrocher

chopinesque said:


> I don't like Andras Schiff's Bach- too mechanical for me.


Have you heard his new WTC? I own the first traversal, which never really did it for me, but I've been hearing a lot of good buzz around the second.


----------



## KenOC

Blancrocher said:


> Have you heard his new WTC? I own the first traversal, which never really did it for me, but I've been hearing a lot of good buzz around the second.


Schiff was never "mechanical." And his new WTC is tremendous, the only one that for me can stand against the Gould, although totally different.


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> Schiff was never "mechanical." And his new WTC is tremendous, the only one that for me can stand against the Gould, although totally different.


I appreciate the extra confirmation. I suppose I always knew, deep down, that I was going to buy this set.


----------



## KenOC

Blancrocher said:


> I appreciate the extra confirmation. I suppose I always knew, deep down, that I was going to buy this set.


The fates have ruled. So let it be written, so let it be done.


----------



## Itullian

I love my Schiff and Hewitt sets. But my favorite Bach on
piano is by Charles Rosen. very limited though.


----------



## Forte

Glenn Gould is my favorite Bach interpreter. I think it was Andras Schiff who said that Gould had better control over five voices than most players have of just two. His technique was really quite perfect, like Michelangeli, and the structures he chooses to bring out in Bach are very beautiful.


----------



## kv466

KenOC said:


> The fates have ruled. So let it be written, so let it be done.


I'm creeping death!!!! :devil:


----------



## Alydon

Check out Evgeni Koroliov in the WTC - blew me away having listened to Fisher, Gould et al.


----------



## Ondine

Those played by Keith Jarrett, IMO, are excellent. Very enjoyable without 'diva' style.

















He recorded Book II, too.









This Goldberg Variations are amazing!

















The best as side interpreter.


----------



## badRomance

chopinesque said:


> I don't like Andras Schiff's Bach- too mechanical and dry for me.


Me either. His playing sounds so clunky and bland.


----------



## KenOC

badRomance said:


> Me either. His playing sounds so clunky and bland.


Schiff's latest WTC is the best there is, except perhaps Gould. And that is not an opinion but an objective fact, scientifically proven and endorsed by your own chiropractor.


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> I love my Schiff and Hewitt sets. But my favorite Bach on
> piano is by Charles Rosen. very limited though.


I have Rosen in The Art of Fugue. Really good.

Wish GG had recorded whole thing on the piano though. It appears he was a bit daunted by the masterpiece so he never got round to it.


----------



## Bulldog

This is a subject dear to my heart - favorite composer and genre. Being new to this board, I'd like to share my basic preferences. Harpsichord is my preferred instrument although I love many Bach recordings on modern piano. My primary reason for preferring the harpsichord is its sharper tone which allows for more detail in the counterpoint. Concerning the piano, I'm not a big fan of performers who tend to be pianistically subtle; this would apply some to Perahia and Hewitt.

Favorite recordings of some Bach solo keyboard works:

Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue - Kipnis (Arabesque).

French Overture - Suzuki (BIS), Rousset (Decca).

Goldberg Variations - Hantai (Mirare), Tureck (DG), Schiff (ECM), Gould (Sony - "81"), Rousset (Decca), Karl Richter (Teldec).

Well-Tempered Clavier - Tureck (DG), Schiff (ECM), Wilson (Teldec), Ross (Various labels), Gilbert (Archiv).

Partitas - Karl Richter (Teldec), Rousset (Decca), Sheppard (Romeo), Gilbert (Harmonia Mundi), Gould (Sony). 

French Suites - Cates (Music & Arts), Curtis (Teldec), Cera (Arts).

Inventions/Sinfonias - van Asperen (Aeolus)

Art of Fugue - Gilbert (Archiv)

Special Mention - On fortepiano, Walter Riemer has recorded Art of Fugue and the Goldberg Variations. These are sparkling performances of great distinction.


----------



## Copperears

While I agree with the implicit consensus on the thread that Bach himself was not a purist in terms of either performance or instrument, I do love the sound of the harpsichord for its delicacy and clarity. The architecture of the music becomes all the more crystalline when played on this instrument well. Plus, there is a virtue, though not a requirement, in working within constraints as a form of discipline inspiring creativity.

The piano as we know it now risks bloat, excess and monstrosity of sound, the harpsichord brings a halt to all that.


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> This is a subject dear to my heart - favorite composer and genre. Being new to this board, I'd like to share my basic preferences. Harpsichord is my preferred instrument although I love many Bach recordings on modern piano. My primary reason for preferring the harpsichord is its sharper tone which allows for more detail in the counterpoint. Concerning the piano, I'm not a big fan of performers who tend to be pianistically subtle; this would apply some to Perahia and Hewitt.
> 
> Favorite recordings of some Bach solo keyboard works:
> 
> Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue - Kipnis (Arabesque).
> 
> French Overture - Suzuki (BIS), Rousset (Decca).
> 
> Goldberg Variations - Hantai (Mirare), Tureck (DG), Schiff (ECM), Gould (Sony - "81"), Rousset (Decca), Karl Richter (Teldec).
> 
> Well-Tempered Clavier - Tureck (DG), Schiff (ECM), Wilson (Teldec), Ross (Various labels), Gilbert (Archiv).
> 
> Partitas - Karl Richter (Teldec), Rousset (Decca), Sheppard (Romeo), Gilbert (Harmonia Mundi), Gould (Sony).
> 
> French Suites - Cates (Music & Arts), Curtis (Teldec), Cera (Arts).
> 
> Inventions/Sinfonias - van Asperen (Aeolus)
> 
> Art of Fugue - Gilbert (Archiv)
> 
> Special Mention - On fortepiano, Walter Riemer has recorded Art of Fugue and the Goldberg Variations. These are sparkling performances of great distinction.


I just want to ask you if you've heard some of my favourites, like Leonhardt's DHM Goldbergs and Verlet's Astrée Partitas.


----------



## Vaneyes

*GG* across the board, and I'll add *Aimard* for The Art of Fugue.


----------



## StevenOBrien

If I had to pick one, it would be Glenn Gould. I like the two Richters though (Sviatoslav and Karl).


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> I just want to ask you if you've heard some of my favourites, like Leonhardt's DHM Goldbergs and Verlet's Astrée Partitas.


Both. Leonhardt's is exceptional, Verlet's excellent.


----------



## hpowders

Trevor Pinnock in the keyboard Partitias. Fabulous!


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Trevor Pinnock in the keyboard Partitias. Fabulous!


Which recording - the older Archiv or the Hanssler?


----------



## hpowders

Trevor Pinnock. His performances of the Bach keyboard partitas are the best I know.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Trevor Pinnock. His performances of the Bach keyboard partitas are the best I know.


Understood, but he recorded them twice. That's why I asked whether it was the Archiv or Hanssler set you praise.


----------



## monelle

Kapell and Richter.


----------



## Pugg

monelle said:


> Kapell and Richter.


Welcome to Talk Classical monelle.


----------



## Guest

I like Vladimir Feltsman.


----------



## KenOC

I recently got Feltsman's WTC and think it's quite excellent.


----------



## jegreenwood

Any other fans of Samuel Feinberg's WTC?


----------



## Mandryka

jegreenwood said:


> Any other fans of Samuel Feinberg's WTC?


Yes very beautiful, good sense of moving forward, spiritual, strong and even playful. One of the best modern piano ones -- be sure to check out his recording of choral prelude transcriptions and the partita. There are other things . . . toccatas, various preludes and fugues.


----------



## jegreenwood

Mandryka said:


> Yes very beautiful, good sense of moving forward, spiritual, strong and even playful. One of the best modern piano ones -- be sure to check out his recording of choral prelude transcriptions and the partita. There are other things . . . toccatas, various preludes and fugues.


I had his WTC as one of "My Albums" on Tidal, because when I last checked CD copies were hard to come by, but I see that Pristine Classical now offers it. By any chance have you heard their version? (I would probably opt for the mono; not ambient stereo.)


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I started out with Glenn Gould but have new "heroes" now. The newest being Igor Levit. Angela Hewitt, Andras Schiff, Murray Perahia are always nice and "discovered" Roger Woodward on spotify during a frenzy of comparing different recordings (don't really know who he is...). And that's only modern piano guys. My favorite artist on spotify is Richard Egarr, so they told me, but I also enjoy other cembaloplayers, especially Gustav Leonhard & Trevor Pinnock.


----------



## jegreenwood

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I started out with Glenn Gould but have new "heroes" now. The newest being Igor Levit. Angela Hewitt, Andras Schiff, Murray Perahia are always nice and "discovered" Roger Woodward on spotify during a frenzy of comparing different recordings (don't really know who he is...). And that's only modern piano guys. My favorite artist on spotify is Richard Egarr, so they told me, but I also enjoy other cembaloplayers, especially Gustav Leonhard & Trevor Pinnock.


I heard Schiff play WTC Book 1 in its entirety on a Saturday night. The following Thursday I heard him play Book 2. This year I will be attending the first three concerts in a series scheduled over 4 years in which Angela Hewitt will play the complete solo keyboard works. Actually, I heard her perform the Art of Fugue last year.


----------



## jegreenwood

jegreenwood said:


> I had his WTC as one of "My Albums" on Tidal, because when I last checked CD copies were hard to come by, but I see that Pristine Classical now offers it. By any chance have you heard their version? (I would probably opt for the mono; not ambient stereo.)


Downloaded the Pristine Classical mono version (cover art is a photo of Feinberg at piano with a red background) and was disappointed with the sound. Very resonant, lower notes boomy, some distortion, and somewhat muddy overall.

The master used on Tidal (cover art has a head shot on left; white on black text on right) is much drier, thinner and clearer. I suppose a little more like Gould preferred. No humming though.

Listening to date was through a pair of Audioengine 5s. I will play them through my Thiel 1.5's when I have a few minutes.

I am glad I made the purchase as you never know when an obscure title like this may disappear from streaming sources, but I wish they had selected a better master.


----------



## Mandryka

jegreenwood said:


> Downloaded the Pristine Classical mono version (cover art is a photo of Feinberg at piano with a red background) and was disappointed with the sound. Very resonant, lower notes boomy, some distortion, and somewhat muddy overall.
> 
> The master used on Tidal (cover art has a head shot on left; white on black text on right) is much drier, thinner and clearer. I suppose a little more like Gould preferred. No humming though.
> 
> Listening to date was through a pair of Audioengine 5s. I will play them through my Thiel 1.5's when I have a few minutes.
> 
> I am glad I made the purchase as you never know when an obscure title like this may disappear from streaming sources, but I wish they had selected a better master.


If you want I can let you have a good transfer, but bear in mind these are old Russian recordings and there's only so much that can be done. Pristine have a reputation for using aggressive filtering for noise reduction, so I'm not surprised by what you found.


----------



## jegreenwood

Mandryka said:


> If you want I can let you have a good transfer, but bear in mind these are old Russian recordings and there's only so much that can be done. Pristine have a reputation for using aggressive filtering for noise reduction, so I'm not surprised by what you found.


Thanks I would like that.


----------



## Mandryka

jegreenwood said:


> Thanks I would like that.


I sent you a private message.


----------



## jegreenwood

Mandryka said:


> I sent you a private message.


Playing now!

I will be taking an appreciation course on Bach's keyboard works this fall. I will recommend Feinberg's WTC as one recording not to be overlooked.


----------



## Mandryka

jegreenwood said:


> Playing now!
> 
> I will be taking an appreciation course on Bach's keyboard works this fall. I will recommend Feinberg's WTC as one recording not to be overlooked.


Another one well worth exploring from the same pre-HIP period, very different, is Tureck - the early recording on DG. Yudina and Sokolov and Richter also. But things have moved on since then and we have a much better understanding of Bach's intentions about temperament, articulation etc. I'm not sure any modern pianists have taken this on board very well yet.


----------



## jegreenwood

Mandryka said:


> Another one well worth exploring from the same pre-HIP period, very different, is Tureck - the early recording on DG. Yudina and Sokolov and Richter also. But things have moved on since then and we have a much better understanding of Bach's intentions about temperament, articulation etc. I'm not sure any modern pianists have taken this on board very well yet.


I have the Richter, also a recent purchase, but I prefer Feinberg. Of younger pianists (not so young anymore) I like Schiff. I have the London box of his Bach set plus his re-recording of the WTC for ECM. I have been working my way through the Perahia mega-box, but for the most part have been saving his Bach for last. And of course, he hasn't recorded the WTC. I also have Gould (which is where I started) and Hewitt.

On harpsichord I have Bob Van Asperen. I also have a cycle by Colin Tilney who plays book 1 on the clavichord and book 2 on the harpsichord. He also varies the common order of the pairs by starting in C Major followed by C Minor then moving through the keys by fifths.


----------



## hpowders

I'm glad I went back to the OP and found that keyboard meant "piano".

Therefore I have no Bach recommendations.

I only listen to Bach on harpsichord.


----------



## premont

hpowders said:


> I only listen to Bach on harpsichord.


I tend in that direction, but I am less radical.

There are only a few pianists whose Bach I enjoy in the long run. Examples of these could be:

Wolfgang Rübsam (Bach on piano series for Naxos) 
Bruno Canino (Goldberg variations) 
Hans Petermandl (Art of Fugue) 
Ivo Janssen (Bach keyboard integral).


----------



## Pugg

> Ivo Janssen (Bach keyboard integral).


Very good choice.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## tdc

Kenneth Gilbert and Andras Schiff.


----------



## realdealblues

Gould, Schiff, Hewitt, Perahia


----------



## Bulldog

realdealblues said:


> Gould, Schiff, Hewitt, Perahia


Just going with pianists, I'd remove Hewitt/Perahia and add Woodward/Tureck/Koroliov.


----------



## hpowders

I'd eliminate all pianists and add Trevor Pinnock and Kenneth Weiss.


----------



## Pugg

> Gould, Schiff, Hewitt, Perahia


Did you hear his latest album? Stunning.


----------



## jegreenwood

Heard Angela Hewitt in concert last night. The first NYC recital of her planned 4-year worldwide Bach Odyssey. It centered on the 2 and 3 Part Sinfonias with an assortment of standalone small pieces as well. I will admit that by the end of the Sinfonias my head was spinning a bit from contrapuntal music, and I was ready for something else. But the playing was lovely and imaginative. The Fazioli piano had a lovely tone, although not as much heft as the Steinway, which I most often hear at the 92nd St. Y. Fitting for Bach.

Sunday afternoon brings the six French Suites.


----------



## Razumovskymas

I only really like Bach when it's played by Gould.


----------



## Guest

Gustav Leonhardt is my favorite. playing here the fourth cello suite.(Arr.Leonhardt)


----------



## Dr Johnson

I'm an Angela Hewitt fan and I don't care who knows it.


----------



## bz3

Mostly Perahia for me, and I haven't yet heard the French Suites but his Partitas, Goldbergs, and keyboard concertos I return to very frequently. Never been much on the harpsichord in solo works, orchestral was better for the instrument to me until I heard Perahia's. Time to buy more Perahia I guess.


----------



## Pugg

bz3 said:


> Mostly Perahia for me, and I haven't yet heard the French Suites but his Partitas, Goldbergs, and keyboard concertos I return to very frequently. Never been much on the harpsichord in solo works, orchestral was better for the instrument to me until I heard Perahia's. Time to buy more Perahia I guess.


Very good decision.


----------



## jegreenwood

Just downloaded Perahia's new recording of the French Suites and listened to the first. Didn't care for the Gigue, but the rest was wonderful. Gentle and intimate - the piano as clavichord. 

Download was from HDTracks (96/24) and the cost with discount was less than the discs at Amazon.


----------



## Border Collie

Dr Johnson said:


> I'm an Angela Hewitt fan and I don't care who knows it.


Yes, she does it for me as well, particularly the Goldbergs and the Well Tempered Claviers. Both the original and the later versions, although I think I slightly prefer the newer WTCs and the original Goldbergs. Love Gould as well.


----------



## Bulldog

jegreenwood said:


> Just downloaded Perahia's new recording of the French Suites and listened to the first. Didn't care for the Gigue, but the rest was wonderful. Gentle and intimate - the piano as clavichord.


The performance is gentle/intimate although there are some beautifully subtle urges displayed. Of course, the Gigue doesn't call for any gentleness and Perahia is appropriately demonstrative.

Perahia's not high on my list of Bach keyboardists, but his first Suite is very well done. I do wish he had used fewer trills.


----------



## starthrower




----------

