# Why do you like romantic/modern Bach?



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

This is not in any way to molest/disturb anyone but your opinion is relevant and helpful for me and I am interested in knowing your reasons.

Why are you interested in a romantic/modern approach for Bach works? Note that I refer to the entire Bach works: vocal works (cantatas, passions, masses, ...), keyboard works, orchestral works so that I decided to discuss this in Classical Music Discussion subforum rather than religious subforum, despite I am more interested to know about the vocal works specifically but also about keyboard works in particular the performance of these works in piano.

Could you please give me your justified point of view?

PS. Note that with romantic/modern approach I mean performing Johann Sebastian Bach vocal works with oversized choirs, slow tempi, modern instruments and inherited 19th century performance practices. This includes performers such as Richter, Klemperer, Rilling, Karajan, either for cantatas, passions, orchestral works and Glenn Gould performing keyboard works with a modern piano.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

I feel no need to justify my pov. I enjoy the way Bach sounds in various formats and understand the differences.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

It was the Bach I got to know when I ventured into classical music in the 80s (HIP was just starting around then). Also, my taste in general is more to the romantic period, with Bach the only baroque composer I really love. For the same reasons, I prefer the keyboard works on piano rather than harpsichord.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

My view is that Bach's music (why not anybody's music?) exists independently of the instruments upon which it is played, and that our preferences provide our only meaningful (to us) guide as to whether or how much we enjoy it. For example, I love Walter/Wendy Carlos' synthesizer Bach and other Baroque composers' works; his version of the BB 4th is marvelous. Ditto with piano Bach; I can now clearly hear the keyboard in the Bach keyboard concertos as it is now not buried beneath the orchestra, as it is in the Leonhardt version of the No. 1, for instance.

We don't look at the sky through Galileo's telescope any more, or wear Ben Franklin's spectacles, or write with a quill pen (unless we want to).


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I don't need all things to be modern when it comes to Bach's music. I will insist on modern piano, though, as the harpsichord sound grates on me. My criteria for anything else is: does it sound good?


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

JSBach85 said:


> This includes performers such as Richter, Klemperer, Rilling, Karajan, either for cantatas, passions, orchestral works and Glenn Gould performing keyboard works with a modern piano.


No it doesn't. Karl Richter and Helmuth Rilling deliberately tried to play Bach differently than Brahms. But most conductors think carefully about their approach to Bach even if it doesn't appear so after a quick, superficial listen.

Your post implicitly assumes an attitude that mis-characterizes all performers that employ modern instruments as not considering or being sensitive to the difference in baroque era performance practice. But many of these performers have thought about it deeply, much more so than the average listener.

Artistry in the performer itself is equally important. I listen to both modern instrument and period instrument performances that speak on both the emotional and cerebral level. I have room for both the modern piano and the harpsichord. I have room for OVPP and large forces if the performance is compelling.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

haydnfan said:


> Artistry in the performer itself is equally important. I listen to both modern instrument and period instrument performances that speak on both the emotional and cerebral level. I have room for both the modern piano and the harpsichord. *I have room for OVPP and large forces if the performance is compelling*.


Yes, this is what it all is about.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JSBach85 said:


> This is not in any way to molest/disturb anyone but your opinion is relevant and helpful for me and I am interested in knowing your reasons.
> 
> Why are you interested in a romantic/modern approach for Bach works? Note that I refer to the entire Bach works: vocal works (cantatas, passions, masses, ...), keyboard works, orchestral works so that I decided to discuss this in Classical Music Discussion subforum rather than religious subforum, despite I am more interested to know about the vocal works specifically but also about keyboard works in particular the performance of these works in piano.
> 
> ...


Just thinking of performances which aren't particularly well "informed" by today's standards

I like Alfred Deller because I think he's good with the words and I like his intimate, small scale manner of producing sounds.

I like Helmut Walcha for his energy and clarity and sense of structure and for the registrations he chooses.

I like David Lively's piano Art of Fugue because it's so strong and clear minded.

I like Ron Lepinat's Art of Fugue because he uses a really fabulous piano.

I like Karl Munchinger for his clarity and elegance and nobility and seriousness. Similarly for Grumiaux.

I like Tatyana Nikolayeva because I like the tone she makes come out of the piano

I like Wolfgang Rubsam on piano because he's so intimate and expressive and colourful

I like Paolo Pandolfo just because the viol makes a good noise, and he has an interesting range of techniques and some novel ideas about familiar music (Cello Suites, he plays a viol)

I likes Isserlis with Egarr in the gamba sonatas (he plays a cello) because they get the balance OK, and the performances are just fine.

I like Susan Heinrich because she does such a good job with BWV 1006, which I find a pretty elusive piece of music normally. She plays a viol.

I like Wolfgang Schneiderhan's first recording of the Bach Chaconne, but I can't remember why.

I like Gustav Leonhardt's transcription of BWV 1010, the 4th cello suite, I may even like it more than Bach's version, because it's so bold! In a similar vein, the recording comes with a wonderful transcription of BWV 995, which is a transcription of a transcription of BWV 1011, the 5th cello suite.

I like Josef Suk because it's such fun, with extrovert swaggering dramatic swoops from low to high notes, like a gypsy coming to play for you in a restaurant.

Then we have Harnoncourt - I don't know whether he's counted as modern/romantic or HIP, but I like a lot of what he did.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Samuil Feinberg's WTC comes to mind.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

haydnfan said:


> No it doesn't. Karl Richter and Helmuth Rilling deliberately tried to play Bach differently than Brahms. But most conductors think carefully about their approach to Bach even if it doesn't appear so after a quick, superficial listen.
> 
> Your post implicitly assumes an attitude that mis-characterizes all performers that employ modern instruments as not considering or being sensitive to the difference in baroque era performance practice. But many of these performers have thought about it deeply, much more so than the average listener.
> 
> Artistry in the performer itself is equally important. I listen to both modern instrument and period instrument performances that speak on both the emotional and cerebral level. I have room for both the modern piano and the harpsichord. I have room for OVPP and large forces if the performance is compelling.


Excellent observations with which I agree. The potential and actual stylistic range in Bach performance is immense, and not everything which doesn't conform to HIP criteria is either "Romantic" or "incorrect."

I enjoy many attempts at "authenticity" in performing Bach and Baroque music in general, but I like hearing the expressive possibilities of the modern piano, with its dynamic range and sustain capacity, brought to Bach's solo keyboard music, and I feel absolutely certain that Bach would have been delighted with it. Why on earth would he prefer an instrument without those capabilities?

In another genre, I remain fond of the "inauthentic" but powerful performances of the sonatas and partitas for solo violin by Josef Szigeti. His "Chaconne" is the most majestic performance I know. Hear it for yourself:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

haydnfan said:


> No it doesn't. Karl Richter . . . deliberately tried to play Bach differently than Brahms.


I wonder how playing (e.g.) the B minor mass or the passions like Brahms would be different from how Karl Richter played them in his later recordings.



haydnfan said:


> But most conductors think carefully about their approach to Bach


Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know. I'm sure Karl Richter did, by the way, but his approach changed . . . The textures became less transparent, the articulation became more consistently legato. . . .


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

JSBach85 said:


> This includes performers such as Richter, Klemperer, Rilling, Karajan, either for cantatas, passions, orchestral works and Glenn Gould performing keyboard works with a modern piano.


The idea of Gould as somehow Romantic is especially ???????


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> The idea of Gould as somehow Romantic is especially ???????


Modern maybe. The idea was modern/romantic, which I took to mean modernist (Toscanini / Boulez sort of thing) or romantic (Furtwangler / Joachum sort of thing)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I HATE anachronistic, Romantic Bach.

The only reason I came here is to see who these people actually are who love Bach performed that way.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Modern maybe. The idea was modern/romantic, which I took to mean modernist (Toscanini / Boulez sort of thing) or romantic (Furtwangler / Joachum sort of thing)


That's fair.

My answer to the question is that I like performances that are musically effective, which more often than not is HIP, but there are exceptions. One big one is that I generally prefer his solo keyboard works played on a modern piano, provided they're not played in a Romantic style.

I had a piano teacher who complained that in the 20th century, pianists went from playing Bach like Chopin to playing Bach like Hindemith. I believe he was thinking of Gould above all, maybe Gulda. Was he right? Maybe. But the question for me is whether it works musically.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Because the harmonic language of Bach's music naturally lends itself to musicality, sensitivity and beauty as opposed to cold, fast, emotionless interpretation.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because the harmonic language of Bach's music naturally lends itself to musicality, sensitivity and beauty as opposed to cold, fast, emotionless interpretation.


Agreed, and that's why I prefer Baroque HIP.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Agreed, and that's why I prefer Baroque HIP.


A comment that raises more questions than it answers, as does the comment it commented upon...

But carry on. :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> A comment that raises more questions than it answers


Okay, I'll expand a little on my one-line response. When I initially tried to gain affection for baroque music, I was listening to modern instrument performances; I didn't find them highly musical, sensitive or beautiful. Switching to period instruments and a HIP approach, the music now opened up to me and the deficiencies disappeared.

As for emotionless performances, nobody wants those.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> This is not in any way to molest/disturb anyone but your opinion is relevant and helpful for me and I am interested in knowing your reasons.


This sentence haunting me, why should we don't like it, just like you like your "HIP" recordings?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Okay, I'll expand a little on my one-line response. When I initially tried to gain affection for baroque music, I was listening to modern instrument performances; I didn't find them highly musical, sensitive or beautiful. Switching to period instruments and a HIP approach, the music now opened up to me and the deficiencies disappeared.
> 
> As for emotionless performances, nobody wants those.


My rebuttal:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

And


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll assume those are some of your favorite Bach recordings; mine are a little different. I trust we are both happy with our preferences. From your group, I also have the Casals, Britten, and Fischer. They aren't among my favorites, but easily worth a nice spot in my music room.


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Pugg said:


> This sentence haunting me, why should we don't like it, just like you like your "HIP" recordings?


If this is what you like is better to enjoy the music than not but what I don't understand, aside the performance practices and seems that nobody here address this, is why those who enjoy modern instrument orchestras usually prefer very old recordings from 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s. Independly of orchestras, instruments, ... there are not recordings dating from 90s/2000s? Would not be better to enjoy recordings with better sound quality? Do you consider the best recordings those obsolete recordings? If so, then you consider that nobody from 60s until today was not able to perform Bach better?


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Then and following some of your reasoning (not you, in general I mean), why listening Bach with period instruments if we have super pianos with better sound quality and sound projection to play keyboard works in modern concert halls? I can say then, why we should listen recordings from 40s if we have more updated recordings?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JSBach85 said:


> If this is what you like is better to enjoy the music than not but what I don't understand, aside the performance practices and seems that nobody here address this, is why those who enjoy modern instrument orchestras usually prefer very old recordings from 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s. Independly of orchestras, instruments, ... there are not recordings dating from 90s/2000s? Would not be better to enjoy recordings with better sound quality? Do you consider the best recordings those obsolete recordings? If so, then you consider that nobody from 60s until today was not able to perform Bach better?


Leaving aside all the piano recordings of Bach's keyboard works, I don't think there have been many Bach recordings on modern instruments. So, most of them are on the older side. Also, I can't think of any reason to consider these older recordings obsolete. Are Gieseking recordings obsolete? How about Cortot? No, far from being obsolete, these recordings give us the opportunity to enjoy some of the greatest musicians of any era. These musicians transcend the relatively poor sound quality. If you can't tolerate the sound on the older recordings, that's okay. However, don't think for a second that everyone craves modern sound.


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

That's ok but it's not just the sound quality. I remember you that there are recordings played on period instruments but live recordings with awful sound quality but still great performances (lots of operas from radio, just an example, I have one from an opera of Galuppi). It's more about time, I assume that most of you prefer Bach on modern instruments and that's ok but... within modern instruments orchestras/solo instruments... why recordings and therefore performers from 40s, 50s? As far as I know, nowadays there is still some performers using the same performing criteria, why not listening to them and stick with performers from 50 years old? (and I am thinking about modern instrument orchestras / performers)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I don't care to listen to recordings that are mono or of poor stereo quality. As great as the artists were prior to the stereo era -and I grew up listening to some of them- they have been succeeded by artists of equal or greater quality and their performances are not marred by the medium.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I don't care to listen to recordings that are mono or of poor stereo quality. As great as the artists were prior to the stereo era -and I grew up listening to some of them- they have been succeeded by artists of equal or greater quality and their performances are not marred by the medium.


I don't consider it a fact that modern artists are of equal or greater quality. They are simply different. If you want to listen to Cortot or Backhaus, you'll have to live with the sound quality. Obviously, you don't consider those older artists to be special enough to put up with poor sound (sometimes not too poor). To me, their special qualities easily win the day.

One more thing. The issues concerning period vs. modern instruments don't require an evaluation as to sound quality. The fact that I prefer baroque music on harpsichord has nothing to do with sound quality.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

I'm not going to try and search for years to find a forgotten document that indicated a prototype fortepiano had been invented in Bach's time to come up with some petty justification to myself and others for why I listen to the Well-Tempered Clavier more often on the piano than harpsichord. I just like the sound of the piano and, believe it or not purists, Bach's genius won't come close to being irrevocably harmed by simply being played on a different type of keyboard. 

Andras Schiff, one of Bach's great interpreters (IMO at least), said something like 'I know it's not how Bach would have played or listened to it, but honestly: who can listen to a harpsichord for three hours straight?'. I don't actually agree with him, but it shows that the purity of your instrument doesn't necessarily harm the purity of your interpretation, at least when it comes to different types of keyboards.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Okay, I'll expand a little on my one-line response. When I initially tried to gain affection for baroque music, I was listening to modern instrument performances; I didn't find them highly musical, sensitive or beautiful. Switching to period instruments and a HIP approach, the music now opened up to me and the deficiencies disappeared.


I agree, by the way, but the question is: why?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Tallisman said:


> I agree, by the way, but the question is: why?


For me, it mainly comes down to the strings and vibrato from strings and vocalists. I find modern strings to sound rather sour in baroque music, and the vibrato really drives me to distraction.


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Tallisman said:


> Andras Schiff, one of Bach's great interpreters (IMO at least), said something like 'I know it's not how Bach would have played or listened to it, but honestly: who can listen to a harpsichord for three hours straight?'.


Believe me or not, I can listen to a harpsichord for more than three hours straight and I did so. Just this afternoon, not exactly 3 hours, but 2 hours of Buxtehude harpsichord works. I think that someone that loves baroque music usually likes harpsichord because was used extensively either as solo instrument and basso continuo in trios, chamber music, sacred works and operas so this instrument was so popular that was present even in portraits and lots of paintings. You don't need to listen anything at all, just visit museums all through Europe to see how popular harpsichord was actually.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Schiff is an anti-harpsichord guy. As for me, I have listened to the harpsichord all day long and into the evening. I've done the same with the piano. The only instrument I can't handle for more than an hour or two is the flute.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I don't consider it a fact that modern artists are of equal or greater quality. They are simply different. If you want to listen to Cortot or Backhaus, you'll have to live with the sound quality. Obviously, you don't consider those older artists to be special enough to put up with poor sound (sometimes not too poor). To me, their special qualities easily win the day.


Of course, each to his own. There is some reasonably good stereo Backhaus available such as a set of the Beethoven Sonatas except for #29. But, take Szigeti, whose Brahms Concerto on 78 rpm (belonged to my grandmother) was the first violin concerto I ever heard. I wanted to get it on 33 rpm, but never found it with Szigeti. In those days you could take back records if you didn't like them. I had my poor Dad keep returning them (all mono) until I found one like Szigeti. Then saw the movie Rhapsody (Liz Taylor) which has major portions of the Rach #2 and Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, So got the mono of those recordings and from then on I was hooked and it was all mono. But when I eventually first heard stereo, it was glorious and my mono days were over...forever.


> One more thing. The issues concerning period vs. modern instruments don't require an evaluation as to sound quality. The fact that I prefer baroque music on harpsichord has nothing to do with sound quality.


I'm sure it doesn't. I wasn't inferring otherwise.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

JSBach85 said:


> If this is what you like is better to enjoy the music than not but what I don't understand, aside the performance practices and seems that nobody here address this, is why those who enjoy modern instrument orchestras usually prefer very old recordings from 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s. Independently of orchestras, instruments, ... there are not recordings dating from 90s/2000s? Would not be better to enjoy recordings with better sound quality? Do you consider the best recordings those obsolete recordings? If so, then you consider that nobody from 60s until today was not able to perform Bach better?


I like all times recordings , as long as it's reasonable listening and the 1990- 2000 are for sure not always better.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> Leaving aside all the piano recordings of Bach's keyboard works, I don't think there have been many Bach recordings on modern instruments. So, most of them are on the older side. Also, I can't think of any reason to consider these older recordings obsolete. Are Gieseking recordings obsolete? How about Cortot? No, far from being obsolete, these recordings give us the opportunity to enjoy some of the greatest musicians of any era. These musicians transcend the relatively poor sound quality. If you can't tolerate the sound on the older recordings, that's okay. However, don't think for a second that everyone craves modern sound.


I would only add that starting with the stereo recordings of RCA, Mercury and several other labels in the mid 1950s we were blessed with some of the best sounding albums of all time - often with stellar performances. Unfortunately those labels did not focus very much on pre-19th century music back then. (For instance, the Living Stereo 60 disc SACD set devotes less than one disc each to Bach and Mozart and none to Haydn.)


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> For me, it mainly comes down to the strings and vibrato from strings and vocalists. I find modern strings to sound rather sour in baroque music, and the vibrato really drives me to distraction.


These things may pose problems for me too. But another big problem is the tuning with the omnipresent equal tuning used by MI ensembles.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

I like Bach being interpreted committedly, light-spiritedly, without a tinge of dogmatism. So please, no Harnoncourt, especially not Mdme Harnoncourt, and no heavy-handed Bach from Teutonic bigbandbelievers. Yes, Sviatoslav Richter, Tatiana Nikolayeva, Trevor Pinnock and so on.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

True confession: I prefer Bach on the piano, not the harpsichord.  The dynamic range of the piano seems to allow for more emotional expression. The harpsichord isn't capable of dynamic contrasts (at least not to the same extent as the piano). Whenever I try listening to Bach on the harpsichord, the experience feels unsatisfying: I always feel like I need to keep turning the volume up and down to add some dynamics to the music! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

JSBach85 said:


> That's ok but it's not just the sound quality. I remember you that there are recordings played on period instruments but live recordings with awful sound quality but still great performances (lots of operas from radio, just an example, I have one from an opera of Galuppi). It's more about time, I assume that most of you prefer Bach on modern instruments and that's ok but... within modern instruments orchestras/solo instruments... why recordings and therefore performers from 40s, 50s? As far as I know, nowadays there is still some performers using the same performing criteria, why not listening to them and stick with performers from 50 years old? (and I am thinking about modern instrument orchestras / performers)


Why listen to Bach instead of today's composers? Same reasoning. We listen to Bach because his music is great.

I don't have an agenda of wanting to listen to older recordings. It just happens that the greatest classical interpreters mostly happen to have recorded before stereo. Why this is I have no idea. Perhaps we are more interested in mere perfection nowadays. Maybe it's just a simple matter of less interest in classical music resulting in less quality. But if I want to hear Bach played with the highest level of artistry, I turn to Busch, Casals, Fischer, Enescu, etc. That is more important to me than sound quality. That wasn't always the case, but I have become more interested in performance over sound the older I get. It may have to do with being a semi-professional performer myself.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> True confession: *I prefer Bach on the piano, not the harpsichord.*  The dynamic range of the piano seems to allow for more emotional expression. The harpsichord isn't capable of dynamic contrasts (at least not to the same extent as the piano). Whenever I try listening to Bach on the harpsichord, the experience feels unsatisfying: I always feel like I need to keep turning the volume up and down to add some dynamics to the music! :lol:


This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship!! :lol:

Wow! Look at those guys. Synchronized laughter. Cool!!! :lol:


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship!! :lol:
> 
> Wow! Look at those guys. Synchronized laughter. Cool!!! :lol:


I'm probably not worthy of friendship after that horrifying confession.  But I had to get it off my chest!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> I'm probably not worthy of friendship after that horrifying confession.  But I had to get it off my chest!


A chestworthy confession is always the best kind.

Really no problem. I'm sure I could schedule 15 minutes or so for some piano Bach (even writing that is giving me a migraine ).


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

You can put Bach's music into a midi sequencer and it comes out good. I really don't give a hoot about what instruments it gets played on.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> My view is that Bach's music (why not anybody's music?) exists independently of the instruments upon which it is played, and that our preferences provide our only meaningful (to us) guide as to whether or how much we enjoy it. For example, I love Walter/Wendy Carlos' synthesizer Bach and other Baroque composers' works; his version of the BB 4th is marvelous. Ditto with piano Bach; I can now clearly hear the keyboard in the Bach keyboard concertos as it is now not buried beneath the orchestra, as it is in the Leonhardt version of the No. 1, for instance.
> 
> We don't look at the sky through Galileo's telescope any more, or wear Ben Franklin's spectacles, or write with a quill pen (unless we want to).


Exactly. One of the wonderful things about Bach's music, or his instrumental music anyway, is that it can withstand an immense variety of arrangements and instrumentation and still be spectacularly moving and effective. Whether its HIP, non-HIP, Stokowski orchestrated, Wendy Carlos electronic, Jacques Loussier or John Lewis jazz, or Chris Thile on the mandolin, it's all wonderful. OK, maybe not the Swingle Singers so much, but I respect their work if not their aesthetic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Exactly. One of the wonderful things about Bach's music, or his instrumental music anyway, is that it can withstand an immense variety of arrangements and instrumentation and still be spectacularly moving and effective. Whether its HIP, non-HIP, Stokowski orchestrated, Wendy Carlos electronic, Jacques Loussier or John Lewis jazz, or Chris Thile on the mandolin, it's all wonderful. OK, maybe not the Swingle Singers so much, but I respect their work if not their aesthetic.


I was actually introduced to a number of Bach pieces through the Swingles, when my jazz-loving high school music director had our choir perform the music after listening to their recordings. If Bach could survive the Mainland Regional High chorus doing the Swingle Singers, he can survive anything.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> I'm probably not worthy of friendship after that horrifying confession.  But I had to get it off my chest!


Well as far as a normal flesh and blood friendship, yes, you have been eliminated, and that is irreversible. 
However, you are still eligible for cyber-friendship, the lowest of all social statuses.
I'm sorry if I bust-ed your bubble. It's a cold world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> You can put Bach's music into a midi sequencer and it comes out good. I really don't give a hoot about what instruments it gets played on.


As far as giving a hoot is concerned, some of the violin stuff would even work well at a hootenanny.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I love Bach played on modern instruments....his music is very challenging, even on modern instruments....i find the shortcomings of original instruments to be distracting, and it inhibits my enjoyment of the wonderful music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> I love Bach played on modern instruments....his music is very challenging, even on modern instruments....i find the shortcomings of original instruments to be distracting, and it inhibits my enjoyment of the wonderful music.


What are some of those shortcomings?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> What are some of those shortcomings?


uneven scale, "wolf" notes; intonation problems, range limitations, weak tone, insufficient projection of sound....basically, all of the things you try to correct with modern instruments.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> uneven scale, "wolf" notes; intonation problems, range limitations, weak tone, insufficient projection of sound....basically, all of the things you try to correct with modern instruments.


That's a really interesting response, I don't think the uneven scale is a feature of old instruments is it? I mean why can't you just tune them like modern instruments? I don't quite know what you mean by weak tone, is it to do with volume? Clearly a viol and a harpsichord project less than a cello and a Steinway. That's possibly an advantage in some chamber music contexts (think of the enormous balance problems, I'd say probably insurmountable, presenting Bach's gamba sonatas with a piano and cello.)

(Your post made me think that some people believe that louder, simpler, more consonant, more extrovert is better. But you have to just to say that to realise that it's silly.)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Well as far as a normal flesh and blood friendship, yes, you have been eliminated, and that is irreversible.
> However, you are still eligible for cyber-friendship, the lowest of all social statuses.
> I'm sorry if I bust-ed your bubble. It's a cold world.


Of course, I was simply fooling around. Anybody who could claim Bettina as a friend is lucky, and it would take a bit more than preferring Bach on piano to ever change that for me.....perhaps, preferring Scarlatti on piano, in addition to Bach.....the cumulative synergistic effect would most likely completely overwhelm me with intense migrainia, but having that happen....what are the odds?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> What are some of those shortcomings?


Our modern ears are accustomed to modern equal temperament and a very wide dynamic range, one or both of which are difficult to achieve on most 18th century instruments. "Modern" acoustic classical instruments for the most part are mid- to late-19th century inventions and generally can produce a much louder sound than their predecessors. The modern piano helped make the equal-tempered a=440 scale the accepted standard, and some other instruments, like the flute and horn, were modified to make them easier to play the equal-tempered scale in tune, or at least more in tune, as well as louder. Of course. the electrically amplified instruments of the 20th and 21st century have much greater capabilities, at least potentially. In recent years some very sophisticated electronic pianos have been praised as serious musical instruments of the highest quality. I haven't yet played one and so have no opinion, but that seems to be the direction music is moving in, even classical music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> That's a really interesting response, I don't think the uneven scale is a feature of old instruments is it? I mean why can't you just tune them like modern instruments? )


Oh, dear. If you do a search for "millionrainbows" you can find several thousand posts on the subject of scales and intonation. In the mid- and late-19th century, wind and brass instruments were heavily modified or completely redesigned, mainly to enable them to come much closer to the equal-tempered scale, which began to become the standard in the mid-19th century thanks to Steinway and other German and then American piano manufacturers. Before that, all sorts of scales were used in western music, which you can call "uneven" if you like.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Oh, dear. If you do a search for "millionrainbows" you can find several thousand posts on the subject of scales and intonation. In the mid- and late-19th century, wind and brass instruments were heavily modified or completely redesigned, mainly to enable them to come much closer to the equal-tempered scale, which began to become the standard in the mid-19th century thanks to Steinway and other German and then American piano manufacturers. Before that, all sorts of scales were used in western music, which you can call "uneven" if you like.


Thanks, so this seems to be a "problem" for brass and wind only, is that right. Nothing that should be an issue for keyboard, cello, violin, voice, lute etc.

Tell me, your posts make it sound as though the piano manufacturers somehow promoted equal temperament. Presumably because they delivered pianos tuned equally I suppose, and people just left it like that. You can surely tune a piano mean-tone quarter comma can't you? I wouldn't be surprised if it's more problematic than I'm suggesting, because I've never actually heard a piano tuned that way!

By the way, I think that equal tuning is not necessarily a good thing in 17th century music, it seems a bit perverse to play something like The Well Tempered Clavier on an keyboard tuned equally, but that's not really relevant.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Thanks, so this seems to be a "problem" for brass and wind only, is that right.
> 
> Tell me, your posts make it sound as though the piano manufacturers somehow promoted equal temperament. You can surely tune a piano mean-tone quarter comma can't you? I wouldn't be surprised if it's more problematic than I'm suggesting, because I've never actually heard a piano tuned that way!
> 
> By the way, I think that equal tuning is not necessarily a good thing in 17th century music, it seems a bit perverse to play something like The Well Tempered Clavier on an keyboard tuned equally, but that's that's not really relevant.


Yes, 19th century piano manufacturers did promote equal temperament. Standardization was very important for them. And though you can fiddle around with the temperament of a piano, it probably isn't a good idea for the long-term condition of the instrument. Nor would it be easy to play a lot of modern music without equal temperament, since different keys would no longer be equivalent.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Our modern ears are accustomed to modern equal temperament...


Yes, and good as long as it is about music from after ca. 1800, but devasting when it is about music from before ca. 1800. Because equal tuning is generally out of tune, and because it smoothes out the harmonic events making them lose their character. The correlation with modern instruments is ,when they are used, that the continuo as well as always is tuned equally, and that the other instruments have to be in tune with the continuo. If Bach and earlier composers had wanted their music to sound in equal tuning, they would have introduced it much earlier, as this tuning has been known since more than 1000 years ago.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> You can surely tune a piano mean-tone quarter comma can't you? I wouldn't be surprised if it's more problematic than I'm suggesting, because I've never actually heard a piano tuned that way!
> By the way, I think that equal tuning is not necessarily a good thing in 17th century music, it seems a bit perverse to play something like The Well Tempered Clavier on an keyboard tuned equally, but that's not really relevant.


I recently came across a recording of WTC book I played on an unequally tuned piano. I shall come back to this soon.


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

But why so many listeners refuse to listen and ENJOY keyboard woks (not only Bach but also Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti, Soler and so on...) on harpsichord? I repeat the same, at least just looking at some paintings and arts, there are plenty of portraits of women, and yes, especially women, playing harpsichord (that's fine because it is said that women are great keyboard performers either at harpsichord, pianoforte, organ) so I guess was a very popular instrument among the noble classes. That's sad, very sad.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JSBach85 said:


> But why so many listeners refuse to listen and ENJOY keyboard woks (not only Bach but also Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti, Soler and so on...) on harpsichord?


It's called personal preference, and it wins every time. I suppose you could find a way to make folks listen to a harpsichord; try some rope. But you can't force enjoyment on them.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I don't like romantic _or_ modern Bach--I usually listen to Gould.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> I don't like romantic _or_ modern Bach--I usually listen to Gould.


In other words, postmodern Bach. :lol:


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Of course, I was simply fooling around. Anybody who could claim Bettina as a friend is lucky, and it would take a bit more than preferring Bach on piano to ever change that for me.....perhaps, preferring Scarlatti on piano, in addition to Bach.....the cumulative synergistic effect would most likely completely overwhelm me with intense migrainia, but having that happen....what are the odds?


Ummm...I hate to break it to you, but I do prefer Scarlatti on the piano.  Also, I love the New York Times.  You might want to consider deleting my unworthy self from your friends list...:lol:


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

> But why so many listeners refuse to listen and ENJOY keyboard woks (not only Bach but also Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti, Soler and so on...) on harpsichord?


Because so many of them are dreadfully recorded.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Ummm...I hate to break it to you, but I do prefer Scarlatti on the piano.  Also, I love the New York Times.  You might want to consider deleting my unworthy self from your friends list...:lol:


Of course, I already knew that. My friends list deletion mechanism is broken. I should have gone for the premium membership with all the fringe benefits-smooth operation of all TC functions; elimination of all pseudo-intellectual threads; one year exemption from all infractions; six free posts on the Wagner threads without having to do one's homework, for one year, etc;

I hope they offer it again, soon.

The failing New York Times is not allowed in my house. I proudly subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Bettina said:


> Ummm...I hate to break it to you,* but I do prefer Scarlatti on the piano.*  Also, I love the New York Times.  You might want to consider deleting my unworthy self from your friends list...:lol:


And guitar.  But Couperin on harpsichord.

I liked the New York Times better when they had more classical music coverage, but I still have a subscription.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

JSBach85 said:


> But why so many listeners refuse to listen and ENJOY keyboard woks (not only Bach but also Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti, Soler and so on...) on harpsichord? I repeat the same, at least just looking at some paintings and arts, there are plenty of portraits of women, and yes, especially women, playing harpsichord (that's fine because it is said that women are great keyboard performers either at harpsichord, pianoforte, organ) so I guess was a very popular instrument among the noble classes. That's sad, very sad.


I love Bach on harpsichord, especially this recording. I'm sure it's one of your favorites as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JSBach85 said:


> But why so many listeners refuse to listen and ENJOY keyboard woks (not only Bach but also Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti, Soler and so on...) on harpsichord? I repeat the same, at least just looking at some paintings and arts, there are plenty of portraits of women, and yes, especially women, playing harpsichord (that's fine because it is said that women are great keyboard performers either at harpsichord, pianoforte, organ) so I guess was a very popular instrument among the noble classes. That's sad, very sad.


I doubt that anyone actually _refuses_ to enjoy the harpsichord. Some just don't care for the sound of it (although they may not appreciate how diverse harpsichords can be). I like it very much as a continuo instrument and in concertos with small Baroque-style ensembles, but I can find it irritatingly clattery and tiring to listen to in solo literature. The harpsichord, like the piano later on, was very popular for home music-making, but so was the clavichord, which wasn't loud enough for public performances but which some musicians preferred. The nice thing about Baroque keyboard music is that most of it can be played on a variety of keyboard instruments; even organ works can be effective on the pedal harpsichord.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

JSBach85 said:


> But why so many listeners refuse to listen and ENJOY keyboard woks (not only Bach but also Couperin, Rameau, Scarlatti, Soler and so on...) on harpsichord?


I doubt it's that listeners refuse to listen. It depends upon the recording. Harpsichords can vary greatly in sound quality, some that could make coffee nervous, and sometimes they are too closely miked, almost as if the microphone is inside the instrument. Hasn't anyone noticed? It's not for me. Then it also depends upon the performer as well -- making for many variables in the entire experience. But I love most of the recordings of Wanda Landowska, who had her own modern harpsichord built and was a masterful interpreter of Bach and others. Those who like the instrument should continue to post recordings that they truly enjoy, performed on a good instrument, properly recorded and interpreted. Such performances can be a joy and a nice change from the more percussive sound of the piano.

If only most harpsichords sounded this good (but they don't):


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I love Bach on harpsichord, especially this recording. I'm sure it's one of your favorites as well.


I haven't heard Landowska's WTC for a few months; thanks for handing it my way.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> If only most harpsichords sounded this good (but they don't):


I'm confident that most modern harpsichord recordings sound about as good as the one above; some sound better.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> That's a really interesting response, I don't think the uneven scale is a feature of old instruments is it?


Yes, very much so, a major drawback IMO. It's actually an issue with every instrument - producing even tone throughout the range.



> I mean why can't you just tune them like modern instruments?


in order to do so you may have to use awkward cross or alternate fingerings which may tune the note but will produce a stuffy muted tone on that particular note.



> I don't quite know what you mean by weak tone,


weak, wimpy sound, a note that is noticeably weaker than the surrounding tones. muffled, unfocused sound that does not project well.



> is it to do with volume?


more like evenness, and equal strength of tones throughout the range...
think of the horns - there are open notes, which are strong. then to produce the in-between notes, hand-stopping is required - this invariably alters the tone, both in quality and in strength....the same applies to other wind instruments...perhaps not as noticeably, but still there indeed.



> Clearly a viol and a harpsichord project less than a cello and a Steinway.


that is not an issue with me....my problem with the string sound is the nasal, flat, lifeless sound so often produced by HIP strings....of course, it improves noticeably when vibrato is added...but wait!! that's modern performance practice, isn't it??!!



> (Your post made me think that some people believe that louder, simpler, more consonant, more extrovert is better.


no, that is not my point at all....I find the tonal, technical shortcomings to be distracting...I find myself listening more to the performers struggle with the instruments preoccupying my attention over the music itself. it is distracting, and for me, not particularly enjoyable.

That said - HIP has brought some very positive approaches to performance - smaller ensembles, shorter note values, different bowing techniques [not using full bow/full vibrato in the strings - not like one might here for Tchaikovsky or Brahms] - all of which can lead to more clarity...
using these techniques with modern instruments, to me, can be most successful...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Maybe it would help to be talking about a concrete example. Have you heard The Chiaroscuro Quartet's Haydn op 20? Or Dmitri Bhadiarov's Bach cello suites? Or John Holloway's Bach violin sonatas? Or Wojciech Switala's Chopin preludes? Or the Buxtehude chamber music by La Rêveuse? I just can't see how anyone could describe their sound as lifeless, or say that in some sense their tone is uneven.

On the other hand Joseph Szigeti's violin tone in Bach seems pretty uneven tonally to me! As does Alfred Deller's singing. Or René Clemencic's clavichord for gothic music. Maria Callas could be tonally unsmooth, John Vickers too. That's one of their most endearing charms!

As far as lifeless is concerned, this is exactly the word I'd use for the tone of most modern pianos, Steinways. The lack of overtones compared with a good Flemish harpsichord or a clavichord makes for a boring lifeless tonal quality. Just compare the tone of Leonhardt's well tempered clavier with, for example Richter's or Feinberg's.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

the string/keyboard sound is not "uneven"....but the woodwind/brass sound is very much so...distractingly so for me. listen to any natural horn or trumpet recording....the chirping and twittering of the woodwinds I find unattractive as well. while even enough, the flat, nasal "sans espressivo" gut string sound is not very pleasant either.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> the string/keyboard sound is not "uneven"....but the woodwind/brass sound is very much so...distractingly so for me. listen to any natural horn or trumpet recording....the chirping and twittering of the woodwinds I find unattractive as well. while even enough, the flat, nasal "sans espressivo" gut string sound is not very pleasant either.


I expect you're right, I really don't know too much about woodwind and brass, I probably haven't listened as carefully as you have.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> uneven scale, "wolf" notes; intonation problems, range limitations, weak tone, insufficient projection of sound....basically, all of the things you try to correct with modern instruments.


I'm aware of some of these things, but they've never affected my musical enjoyment. How well musicians can work around the problems of playing old instruments is certainly variable: in the early days of HIP practice, players struggled with them, and the difficulties could be very apparent, especially intonation on natural brass instruments. Things have changed a lot since then, and there are now plenty of people playing every sort of instrument with real virtuosity.

When I first heard, in the 1960s, recordings by the Concentus Musicus Wien under Harnoncourt, I was quite excited by the effect of original instruments in Baroque music, with the vivid, distinctive colors of natural horns, wooden flutes, gut strings, and so on. Modern ensembles have a smoother effect, and I have the impression that instruments, and playing techniques, have been trending toward a standardized, homogenized sound; fifty years ago we could still hear distinct traditions of instrumental sound in orchestras from different countries. Even in 19th-century music I don't see a smoother blend as necessarily an advantage, and it certainly isn't in Bach, Rameau, or Beethoven.

I do agree that completely vibratoless string playing can be dull and irritating. I doubt that we can be certain about how and when vibrato was used before the 20th century, and attempts at playing Tchaikovsky and Wagner with vibratoless strings strike me as generally ghastly. A very light, variable vibrato sounds good to me in early music. I don't know whether vibrato is applicable in music for gambas, but that's a distinctive repertoire in which modern strings are not suitable substitutes.

If Baroque-style instruments are well matched and balanced in ensemble, I don't hear "weak" tone or "insufficient projection" as problems. There is no reason why a Vivaldi concerto needs to fill a gigantic symphony hall, but if we want to present it there we can use modern instruments or even discreet amplification.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm always amused by these hair shirt people who insist on HIP Bach with stringent performances. I'm thankful I can enjoy all approaches. So for the St Matthew Passion I have versions by Gardiner, Hasrnoncourt, Herreweghe, Jacobs, Richter and Karajan. I can enjoy them all dependent on my mood. Why must it be either / or?


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

I'm late to the party as always, but modern instruments simply sound better; that's the whole reason we have them and use them. Not that HIPs are no good; they're interesting, but we use modern ones for a reason. 
As for interpretations, being faithful to the composer's intentions is honorable but not entirely necessary to a great performance IMO. As long as it's not carried out to aj extreme, any individualistic approach can sound good.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I don't ride in a Model T. I don't use a dial phone. And I don't do HIPs.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I don't ride in a Model T. I don't use a dial phone. And I don't do HIPs.


Yes, isn't it comforting to know that the general progress makes everything better over time?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I have the impression that instruments, and playing techniques, have been trending toward a standardized, homogenized sound; fifty years ago we could still hear distinct traditions of instrumental sound in orchestras from different countries.


I agree, and there is considerable debate on this subject - I do think that amongst orchestras a general homogeneous sound is the general trend, and not an esp attractive one at that. I loved the characteristic sounds of the great orchestras - Chicago, NYPO, ViennaPO, LeningradPO, Czech PO, etc, etc...the very top orchestras still preserve their sound to a large degree - the teacher-student aspect still prevails in many cases...but among the very fine 2nd, 3rd level orchestras, a generic sound is definitely developing, at least to my ears....very difficult to tell between Atlanta, Seattle, Buffalo, St Louis, etc - all very good ensembles, to be sure....but not a unique, individuality to the sound. This, IMO, is largely due to present day audition and job application process. 


> Even in 19th-century music I don't see a smoother blend as necessarily an advantage, and it certainly isn't in Bach, Rameau, or Beethoven


Modern instruments are not necessarily smooth or blended - a certain rustic, gruffness can be most appropriate for much of the orchestral repertoire. modern instruments prevail, for me, because they can sound very smooth, but they can also sound very raucous and edgy, if need be...it is this broad spectrum of tonal possibilities which I find most attractive - for instance the big, thick, reedy bassoon sound for Sibelius or Shostakovich or even Beethoven is very much part of the tonal palette, but this is not possible to produce on baroque bassoons, they simply don't have the "balls". same with the huge, booming, stentorian sound produced by modern trombones on, say Tannhauser Overture or Beethoven #9 - quite thrilling...but unattainable on the wimpy sackbuts of yesteryear.



> I do agree that completely vibratoless string playing can be dull and irritating. I doubt that we can be certain about how and when vibrato was used before the 20th century, and attempts at playing Tchaikovsky and Wagner with vibratoless strings strike me as generally ghastly. A very light, variable vibrato sounds good to me in early music.


agreed, _un poco vibrato_ does much too liven up the string sound....don't know if it's historically "kosher", but it certainly improves the sound...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I can enjoy them all dependent on my mood. Why must it be either / or?


Exactly - chacun a son gout!!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Gordontrek said:


> I'm late to the party as always, but modern instruments simply sound better; that's the whole reason we have them and use them.


yup.... that's it...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Gordontrek said:


> I'm late to the party as always, but modern instruments simply sound better; that's the whole reason we have them and use them.


I don't think modern strings sound better in baroque music; for classical era music, I can go either way.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I don't ride in a Model T. I don't use a dial phone. And I don't do HIPs.


That's very interesting. I suppose none of you would like the thrill 
of a ride in a HIP 1955 Chevrolet Corvette or its equivalent. 

https://goo.gl/images/GQLcEB

[Raises hand!]


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

While I love music, I have a greater involvement in theater, and over the course of my life I have seen countless performances of Shakespeare. I've seen productions in traditional settings; I've seen productions set throughout history; I've seen all male and all female productions. Arguably the most acclaimed production of Shakespeare in my lifetime was set on an all white stage with many of the characters performing acrobatics on swings.









(Peter Brook's "A Midsummer Night's Dream")

Not to mention the wide range of performances by individual actors. There is not one right way to perform Hamlet. Not all of these productions have worked for me, but many have. And I've learned that the genius of great creative artists is that they invite a variety of interpretation. I listen to Bach's keyboard music on piano and harpsichord. And clavichord and guitar and harp. I play duet clarinet versions of his Two Part Inventions. Each can offer its own satisfactions. And I am the richer for it.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


>


Does anybody recognize this recording? I really like it and would like to buy it on cd.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

If there's any reason I would prefer Bach's keyboards works on a modern piano, it's just clarity. On the organ sometimes the notes seem to get lost or muddled in a way that doesn't sound that great.....on the piano, depending on the skill of the pianist you can make out everything. Not that this quality is essential for music or classical music generally, because some sounds are meant to be washes of sounds rather than crisp and clean. But in many of Bach's compositions clarity is very important.

With that said, I think the piano typically imparts a romantic quality that makes Bach's music less strong somehow.....to me it sounds like pianists play the music like an 'emotional journey' with emphasis on fluctuation of dynamics that Bach would not have been capable of most of the time. When some of the organ pieces are played on organ, they have more presence, they sound less like the personal expression of an artist and more like an impersonal force of nature. I think Bach generally sounds better this way and it probably is more like how the music was played and imagined by Bach, though I can't speak for him.

Secondly, the piano has a very basic, non-complex timbre most of the time and the organ, harpsichord, pedal harpsichord and clavichord have either more presence, charm or character, so I tend to prefer those instruments. Not that piano can't sound good, but it seems strange that musicians would overlook the comparatively simple timbre the piano has in favor of the dynamic sensitivity it provides. Personally I think having an interesting timbre is more likely to draw listeners in than creating a post-Beethoven emotional journey by using phrasing and dynamics that Bach quite possibly did not envision....just consider his quote that "All one has to do is play the right notes at the right time, and the music plays itself"....he didn't say "make sure you crescendo here and observe the hairpins here"


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> to me it sounds like pianists play the music like an 'emotional journey' with emphasis on fluctuation of dynamics


Which pianists? I was just listening to Angela Hewitt perform some of the Partitas this morning and she does not do that. I think many pianists are careful to not add dynamics that you would not hear on a harpsichord.

Anyway first paragraph: I disagree, there is equal clarity in the harpsichord provided the performer does not play too fast nor slur notes together in a rush. In fact the fast decay of notes on the harpsichord usually gives it a high degree of transparency. Second paragraph: Bach should not sound like "an impersonal force of nature." Third paragraph: what!? the piano does not have an overly simple timbre. I have no idea what you're on about.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I've heard good and bad performances come from both the traditionalist and HIP camps. In general I prefer HIP but I don't want dogma interfering with my appreciation of Music. I prefer the Piano in keyboard works, Period Orchestras in Orchestral works, but I have many recordings that deviate from this


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

> to me it sounds like pianists play the music like an 'emotional journey' with emphasis on fluctuation of dynamics that Bach would not have been capable of most of the time.


So what's wrong with that? If you're going to play Bach on the piano, you might as well not pretend that it's a harpsichord.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I think the piano typically imparts a romantic quality that makes Bach's music less strong somehow.....to me it sounds like pianists play the music like an 'emotional journey' with emphasis on fluctuation of dynamics that Bach would not have been capable of most of the time. When some of the organ pieces are played on organ, they have more presence, they sound less like the personal expression of an artist and more like an impersonal force of nature. I think Bach generally sounds better this way and it probably is more like how the music was played and imagined by Bach, though I can't speak for him.
> 
> Personally I think having an interesting timbre is more likely to draw listeners in than creating a post-Beethoven emotional journey by using phrasing and dynamics that Bach quite possibly did not envision....just consider his quote that "All one has to do is play the right notes at the right time, and the music plays itself"....he didn't say "make sure you crescendo here and observe the hairpins here"


I don't know where the idea came from that Baroque music is to be played with strictly "terraced dynamics", i.e. no variations of volume within sections. The mere fact that harpsichords are incapable of crescendos and diminuendos hardly requires that other instruments, much less singers, should labor under the same limitation. The "Mannheim crescendo," in which a whole orchestra would transition from pianissimo to fortissimo within a short time (a sort of "proto-Rossini" idea), was an innovative and sensational effect in orchestral music in the 1750s, but the newness of it doesn't prove that more local, detailed dynamic effects, responsive to phrasing and affect, were absent from music-making before then. Here, as everywhere, judgment and taste must reign: fussy fiddling around with dynamics is certainly extraneous to the structure of a Bach fugue, but in freer forms and more homophonic writing it just isn't credible that musicians would have foregone the expressive possibilities of dynamic nuance. And, if that's the case, it isn't credible that keyboardists wouldn't have been delighted with the control of dynamics possible on the piano, and wouldn't have utilized dynamic variation for expression as much as violinists and singers presumably did.

I would put Bach's quote about "all one needs to do" to make music in the same category as his other famous remark that all one needs to do to be as great a composer as himself is to work equally hard at it. I take both quotes as mockery of people who ask dumb questions.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know where the idea came from that Baroque music is to be played with strictly "terraced dynamics", i.e. no variations of volume within sections. The mere fact that harpsichords are incapable of crescendos and diminuendos hardly requires that other instruments, much less singers, should labor under the same limitation. The "Mannheim crescendo," in which a whole orchestra would transition from pianissimo to fortissimo within a short time (a sort of "proto-Rossini" idea), was an innovative and sensational effect in orchestral music in the 1750s, but the newness of it doesn't prove that more local, detailed dynamic effects, responsive to phrasing and affect, were absent from music-making before then. Here, as everywhere, judgment and taste must reign: fussy fiddling around with dynamics is certainly extraneous to the structure of a Bach fugue, but in freer forms and more homophonic writing it just isn't credible that musicians would have foregone the expressive possibilities of dynamic nuance. And, if that's the case, it isn't credible that keyboardists wouldn't have been delighted with the control of dynamics possible on the piano, and wouldn't have utilized dynamic variation for expression as much as violinists and singers presumably did.
> 
> I would put Bach's quote about "all one needs to do" to make music in the same category as his other famous remark that all one needs to do to be as great a composer as himself is to work equally hard at it. I take both quotes as mockery of people who ask dumb questions.


I once read a doctoral these which said that Gunter Ramin was a major advocate of Terraced Dynamics, that he in turn influenced not only Karl Richter but also Otto Klemperer, who apparently used very rigidly terraced dynamics in his performances in the 1920s (according to reviews) - Ramin played harpsichord continuo for Klemperer.

By coincidence I listened to Ramin playing the 4th partita in a recording of a concert in Russia from the 1950s, on some kind of revival harpsichord. Colourful and lively playing in fact, worth hearing if you're interested in the history of these things.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I once read a doctoral these which said that Gunter Ramin was a major advocate of Terraced Dynamics, that he in turn influenced not only Karl Richter but also Otto Klemperer, who apparently used very rigidly terraced dynamics in his performances in the 1920s (according to reviews) - Ramin played harpsichord continuo for Klemperer.
> 
> By coincidence I listened to Ramin playing the 4th partita in a recording of a concert in Russia from the 1950s, on some kind of revival harpsichord. Colourful and lively playing in fact, worth hearing if you're interested in the history of these things.


Interesting. I imagine Ramin at his harpsichord, listening to the other musicians making dynamic effects his instrument won't permit, feeling upstaged, marginalized and lonely, thinking: "Why should they get to do that neat stuff when I can't? Hey! Maybe they're not supposed to!"

A sad case of dynamics envy.


----------

