# WTC guidance



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I am listening to parts of WTC each night (no score - I am not a practicing pianist). Leonhardt on harpsichord; Nikolayeva on piano.

Is there a nice web-based source which lists clearly how many voices exist in each fugue? Sometimes it is hard to tell. I can often track how many voices by listening for how many entries of the main subject there are, but occasionally this doesn't work due to a preexisting voice repeating the main subject and confusing me.

Seperate (though related) question: Can people actually hold in their minds what each voice is doing at any moment when listening to a 4+ voice fugue? I certaintly can't. I can with 3 but that's my limit at present. For instance, Fugue No. 11 (book 1) which i presume has 4 voices: I can't imagine how anyone could represent each voice at all times because the theme and phrases are so short with wave upon wave quickly submerging the original line.

This raises the question: Beyond enjoying the music, is good _counterpoint_ judged on being able to consciously trace how the parts give rise to the whole, or simply in knowing theoretically what parts there are and focusing on the whole? I would think the former. I guess, however, that "being able to consciously trace how the parts give rise to the whole" is a product of familiarity with the work just as much as it is how welll the contrapuntal work is composed...

:tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Best is to look at a score for the number of voices. Some voices come and go. Sometimes a voice is doubled by an octave so it might sound like an additional one. I doubt anyone can have a audiographic (as opposed to photographic?) memory that can track exactly where each voice is, and reproduce by ear like Mozart did to Salieri's march in Amadeus. Possibly in more than one hearing and focussing on each voice separately. Maybe someone can prove me wrong.

I can generally hear each voice in a 3 part fugue and follow aurally and sense something wrong if you raise a note instead of lower within a semitones or two, it depends if the voice is used in harmony with the others or more independently (harder to detect in harmony). It's kind of like juggling. For some reason a 4th voice throws my mind off, and I can't actively listen anymore, except in more general sense.

Good counterpoint is definitely easier to follow than bad, which is why they have certain rules. Those rules are there not to limit what a composer can do (like what I hear anti-theorists claim), but to make things more clear and discernable. Those rules are actually quite intuitive.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Here is a nice article with some videos and brief explanations for a handful of preludes and fugues though it's far from complete. There's another website that had the goal of analyzing each P/F in-depth but hasn't been updated in many years. I wish there was a site that offered analyses of all Bach's works like Kelly Dean Hansen's Brahms site, but that probably won't happen.

The question about listening to counterpoint is one that I have thought over many times, and I have concluded that one need not be aware of all the intricacies to fully enjoy it. Just sit back, close your eyes, and let the craftsmanship of the music pour over you.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Roger, you may find this helpful. It's Kimiko Ishizaka's superb playing of Book 1.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> I am listening to parts of WTC each night (no score - I am not a practicing pianist). Leonhardt on harpsichord; Nikolayeva on piano.
> 
> Is there a nice web-based source which lists clearly how many voices exist in each fugue? Sometimes it is hard to tell. I can often track how many voices by listening for how many entries of the main subject there are, but occasionally this doesn't work due to a preexisting voice repeating the main subject and confusing me.
> 
> ...


35 years ago, when I was first starting to get interested in the music, I bought this book and I thought it was rather fun to read









That being said I think you should just lie back and enjoy the music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Is there a nice web-based source which lists clearly how many voices exist in each fugue?


Without a score you can often tell by listening for the entrances of the subject (the theme of the fugue, stated at the outset by the first voice and then taken up by the other voices in turn). Sometimes though in "answer" the subject may be augmented (lengthened note values), diminished (shortened ones) or the subject may be inverted.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

consuono said:


> Without a score you can often tell by listening for the entrances of the subject (the theme of the fugue, stated at the outset by the first voice and then taken up by the other voices in turn). Sometimes though in "answer" the subject may be augmented (lengthened note values), diminished (shortened ones) or the subject may be inverted.


Yes this has been my method previously. I found that Pollini's recording on Spotify has the number of voices listed on the track titles. It's not a performance I particularly like, but I've constructed my much needed list from it. So all good now.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The question about listening to counterpoint is one that I have thought over many times, and I have concluded that one need not be aware of all the intricacies to fully enjoy it. Just sit back, close your eyes, and let the craftsmanship of the music pour over you.


I agree with this. In the end, the "harmony" created is the ultimate appeal. Music is supposed to be "listened to", not pedantically "counted"


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

What I agree with, is people can [and typically do] listen to music however exactly they want.

The question becomes how_ do_ they listen to it? not how_ should_ they. And more interestingly, how _don't_ we listen to it?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I am interested in the historical compositional goals of works like the WTC - whether they were composed intending the listener to gain pleasure from grasping the individual voices; the player to enjoy the individual voices but not the listener; or not; etc.

I myself enjoy the challenge of grasping the individual voices, which is a seperate matter.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

There's a really quirky book on WTC which people may enjoy


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There used to be a bunch of videos like this on youtube but I can't find them now. Maybe you can. The colored bars obviously represent voices.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Like this actually....


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

science said:


> Like this actually....


I love these videos!


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

So you have four voices in the Bach fugue you are playing (or listening to). Which ones do you give emphasis and when? This is the art of counterpoint. 

Counterpoint is not restricted to fugues and repeating, a few bars on, the same theme or line. Counterpoint exists in nearly all polyphonic music. A simple and basic example of this is the first movement of Beethoven's Op27/2 sonata. There is one melody in arpeggios in the right hand, counterposed by a different melody in octaves in the left hand. When you play it you can chose to bring out one or the other. 

With the more intricate fugues what you choose to emphasise is your choice. Clarity and articulation play a part and I'd recommend Gulda's WTC with very sparse use of the pedal to start to hear all those voices.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Holden4th said:


> So you have four voices in the Bach fugue you are playing (or listening to). Which ones do you give emphasis and when? This is the art of counterpoint.
> 
> .


No. You give equal emphasis to all four. It's not a Schubert violin sonata, it's contrapuntal.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> No. You give equal emphasis to all four. It's not a Schubert violin sonata, it's contrapuntal.


I don't think that's entirely true. If you'll listen in particular to Tureck and S. Richter, they do place emphasis on the subject when it appears in whatever voice.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> I don't think that's entirely true. If you'll listen in particular to Tureck and S. Richter, they do place emphasis on the subject when it appears in whatever voice.


Many pianists do. This is not counterpoint, but changing melody with changing accompainment.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

premont said:


> Many pianists do. This is not counterpoint, but changing melody with changing accompainment.


According to whom? Is equal emphasis on all voices a rule in Fux's manual on counterpoint? Is it something Bach stated?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

premont said:


> Many pianists do. This is not counterpoint, but changing melody with changing accompainment.


Premont, you seem to be implying that counterpoint = equality in all voices. Counterpoint as I'm sure you are aware, does not necessarily imply that at all. The subject is generally given more emphasis in a fugue.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

tdc said:


> According to whom? Is equal emphasis on all voices a rule in Fux's manual on counterpoint? Is it something Bach stated?


As far as I am concerned, Fux's manual on counterpoint discusses composition, and not performance practice.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

mikeh375 said:


> Premont, you seem to be implying that counterpoint = equality in all voices. Counterpoint as I'm sure you are aware, does not necessarily imply that at all. The subject is generally given more emphasis in a fugue.


We may deduce from the instruments of Bach's age, that they allowed as well as no dynamic emphasis on the fugue subejects during performance. When Bach played a fugue on an organ, he therefore had to put equal emphasis on all voices. If he wanted to draw attention to a certain voice, ha had to do it with the help of articulation (and maybe subtle rubato) and not by dynamic means. What modern pianists think has no authority in this context.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

premont said:


> We may deduce from the instruments of Bach's age, that they allowed as well as no emphasis on the fugue subejects during performance. When Bach played a fugue on an organ, he therefore had to put equal emphasis on all voices. If he wanted to draw attention to a certain voice, ha had to do it with the help of articulation (and maybe subtle rubato) and not by dynamic means. What modern pianists think has no authority in this context.


Organs have various stops. So do many harpsichords as well, come to think of it, along with different ranks of strings to enable louder playing. But that's irrelevant to the question as to whether every voice in a fugue is to receive "equal emphasis" at all times. One reason I brought up Tureck is that she studied the music of that period very closely and was also a harpsichordist. I think if she believed in such strict line-emphasis equality it would've found its way into her piano playing.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> Organs have various stops. So do many harpsichords as well, come to think of it, along with different ranks of strings to enable louder playing. But that's irrelevant to the question as to whether every voice in a fugue is to receive "equal emphasis" at all times.


Yes, irrelevant. So let us just state, that the organs in Bach's time didn't allow stops changes in the course of the playing. A given chosen registration had to be maintained during the whole piece. Of course it was possible to change hands between the manuals, but to play the fugue subject on the "strong" manual every time it appears in one voice or the other, is completely impractical.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

premont said:


> Yes, irrelevant. So let us just state, that the organs in Bach's time didn't allow stops changes in the course of the playing. A given chosen registration had to be maintained during the whole piece. Of course it was possible to change hands between the manuals, but to play the fugue subject on the "strong" manual every time it appears in one voice or the other, is completely impractical.


Using different manuals in itself would present a problem for strict "line equality". Then again a line can be stressed without dynamic change, as in fugues 20 and 22 from WTC II.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> One reason I brought up Tureck is that she studied the music of that period very closely and was also a harpsichordist. I think if she believed in such strict line-emphasis equality it would've found its way into her piano playing.


I have heard some of her harpsichord recordings many years ago (Goldberg var. and chromatic fantasy and fugue). As far as I recall, she used revival harpsichords and displayed all in all a very pianistic approach to the instrument. I would never consider her an authority as to harpsichord playing.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*Frédérick Haas* has recorded Book II and it seems very good. I especially like the sound of his instrument.

View attachment 142434


I don't think he has recorded Book I. Hope he does.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> Using different manuals in itself would present a problem for strict "line equality".


There are respected informed organists who maintain the view, that the main section and the end section in many Bach organ fugues (e.g. BWV 548 or 546) should be played on the HW and the middle pedal free section should be played on the RP or OW. This still preserves the balance between the voices in each section.



consuono said:


> Again a line can be stressed without dynamic change, as in fugues 20 and 22 from WTC II.


Yes by articulation and rubato as I wrote above.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> No. You give equal emphasis to all four. It's not a Schubert violin sonata, it's contrapuntal.


In Bach's time when keyboard instruments had virtually no dynamic range, this was the only thing you could do. The piano takes us beyond this point and many pianists exploit it. While this might be heretical to the purists, it does give a new interpretative dimension to the music. I don't think Bach would have been unhappy with the concept. Bach did get to hear (and probably play) a Cristofori piano but I'm not sure if his thoughts on it were ever made public.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Holden4th said:


> The piano takes us beyond this point and many pianists exploit it.


That's an interesting idea. I'm not a pianist. When they use piano effects like dynamic variation in something which clearly wasn't written for an instrument like that -- a WTC fugue which seems to sit well on a harpsichord for example -- what are they trying to achieve?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Holden4th said:


> In Bach's time when keyboard instruments had virtually no dynamic range, this was the only thing you could do. The piano takes us beyond this point and many pianists exploit it. While this might be heretical to the purists,* it does give a new interpretative dimension to the music. *I don't think Bach would have been unhappy with the concept. *Bach did get to hear (and probably play) a Cristofori piano* but I'm not sure if his thoughts on it were ever made public.


I use to compare this "new dimension" with a colorizing of Albrecht Dürer's copper engravings. When color is added it steals the attention from other elements of the work, the most important being shape and structure. Similarly with a Bach fugue. The addition of piano color steals the attention from the form and structure of the work, two characteristics which Bach was very focused on.

And I don't know if Bach ever heard a Christofori fortepiano, but he did hear a Silbermann fortepiano, and we know that he also played upon at least one, but this instrument is so different from a modern piano, that we can't conclude anything from what he said about the Silbermann instrument, which all the same was very little.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

premont said:


> As far as I am concerned, Fux's manual on counterpoint discusses composition, and not performance practice.


Yes, but you stated that if one voice is emphasized more than the others it is not counterpoint. However counterpoint can be composed for forces other than organs or harpsichords, so your post was addressing your own theory on performance practice, and has nothing to do with counterpoint.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

premont said:


> I have heard some of her harpsichord recordings many years ago (Goldberg var. and chromatic fantasy and fugue). As far as I recall, she used revival harpsichords and displayed all in all a very pianistic approach to the instrument. I would never consider her an authority as to harpsichord playing.


Oh, I don't know. More so than you or I, no doubt.


> Yes by articulation and rubato as I wrote above.


In other words, no, lines aren't always emphasized equally. In other words, pedantic hair-splitting.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Personally, I don't feel every voice should be given equal dynamic emphasis. A voice playing a trill should be quieter than the others, or else it detracts the other voices. A trill is ornamental. When I hear it on harpsichord, I interpret it as most would on piano anyway. I think emphasizing the subject actually strengthens the form and structure of the music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> In other words, no, lines aren't always emphasized equally. In other words, pedantic hair-splitting.


It's true that a skilled harpsichord player can draw the listener's attention to a note or a handful of notes by means of articulation and rubato. I'm not sure, but I don't think you could achieve the effect Tureck creates here on the entry of the second voice, where the first voice takes on a secondary role






Here's Asperen to show how very different things sound on a harpsichord.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

tdc said:


> Yes, but you stated that if one voice is emphasized more than the others it is not counterpoint. However counterpoint can be composed for forces other than organs or harpsichords, so your post was addressing your own theory on performance practice, and has nothing to do with counterpoint.





consuono said:


> In other words, no, lines aren't always emphasized equally. In other words, pedantic hair-splitting.


My point of departure was the* dynamic* emphasis most pianists give to entrances of the subject in a Bach fugue. This dynamic emphasis works against the equality of the voices in a fugue. The fact that Bach entrusted his most illustrious fugues to the organ (or harpsichord) shows that he didn't put much emphasis on dynamic variation between the voices. Of course every voice in a fugue should be articulated individually, but there is no evidence for the thought that individual voices should stand dynamically out from each other. Nor in other Bach music e.g. the first kyrie fugue from the b-minor mass there should be dynamic difference between the statements of the fugue subject.

Counterpoint is a way of composing, not a performance practice, but in a fugue the voices should be equal in performance. This is the implied nature of fugues.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> Oh, I don't know. More so than you or I, no doubt.


How can you be so sure? Her obvious pianistic approach disqualifies her to day.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally, I don't feel every voice should be given equal dynamic emphasis. A voice playing a trill should be quieter than the others, or else it detracts the other voices. A trill is ornamental. When I hear it on harpsichord, I interpret it as most would on piano anyway. I think emphasizing the subject actually strengthens the form and structure of the music.


With Bach many ornaments are more melodical than ornamental. This is the reason why he whote so much of it out in detail.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

premont said:


> My point of departure was the* dynamic* emphasis most pianists give to entrances of the subject in a Bach fugue. This dynamic emphasis works against the equality of the voices in a fugue. The fact that Bach entrusted his most illustrious fugues to the organ (or harpsichord) shows that he didn't put much emphasis on dynamic variation between the voices. Of course every voice in a fugue should be articulated individually, but there is no evidence for the thought that individual voices should stand dynamically out from each other. Nor in other Bach music e.g. the first kyrie fugue from the b-minor mass there should be dynamic difference between the statements of the fugue subject.
> 
> Counterpoint is a way of composing, not a performance practice, but in a fugue the voices should be equal in performance. This is the implied nature of fugues. Listen to Helmut Walcha's recording of the AoF and hear how full equality of the voices can be carried out all way through.


I think it is nice to have at least the first few notes of a new entry slightly louder than the surrounding counterpoint. Not exaggerated, of course, but just some little nudge to bring the listener's attention to the new voice. But this could also be accomplished through agogics, I suppose, on a harpsichord.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

premont said:


> My point of departure was the* dynamic* emphasis most pianists give to entrances of the subject in a Bach fugue. This dynamic emphasis works against the equality of the voices in a fugue. The fact that Bach entrusted his most illustrious fugues to the organ (or harpsichord) shows that he didn't put much emphasis on dynamic variation between the voices. Of course every voice in a fugue should be articulated individually, but there is no evidence for the thought that individual voices should stand dynamically out from each other. Nor in other Bach music e.g. the first kyrie fugue from the b-minor mass there should be dynamic difference between the statements of the fugue subject.
> 
> Counterpoint is a way of composing, not a performance practice, but in a fugue the voices should be equal in performance. This is the implied nature of fugues.


I understand this kind of view from a scholarly perspective. But when it comes to _listening_, who cares about 'should' and 'should not'. I care about what sounds good (to me).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> I understand this kind of view from a scholarly perspective. But when it comes to _listening_, who cares about 'should' and 'should not'. I care about what sounds good (to me).


Same here. That's why I prefer each musical line having equal weight.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> Same here. That's why I prefer each musical line having equal weight.


Is this what you feel Tureck and Gould do, or are they exceptions to your preference? What about harpsichordists, are there certain performers who you feel achieve this more than others?

Or perhaps you are just suggesting in general that you prefer Bach on harpsichord and organ to piano?

I'm curious who the 'equal weight' school of thought posters feel are the most authentic performers of Bach. Since it is possible to give equal weight to different voices on piano are there any pianists who qualify as being exceptional interpreters of Bach?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

tdc said:


> Is this what you feel Tureck and Gould do, or are they exceptions to your preference? What about harpsichordists, are there certain performers who you feel achieve this more than others?
> 
> Or perhaps you are just suggesting in general that you prefer Bach on harpsichord and organ to piano?


It's a general preference. There are certainly many performances of unequal weight that I also love. However, a performance that sounds to me like a binary one has little hope of getting my affection unless other factors are outstanding.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I do like to hear performances where pianists try to bring out all the voices in equal measure, but there are some like Edwin Fischer, Samuil Feinberg, and Andras Schiff who sometimes hide the voices. Sometimes this creates a convincing sense of “narrative” for me (voices struggling to be heard and emerging victorious at the end) that is probably not what Bach intended but as a fan of creative interpretation it strikes a chord with me. I like hearing how different pianists harness the potentials of the instrument to create color, contrast, and dynamic/textural variation with the counterpoint.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

premont said:


> I have heard some of her harpsichord recordings many years ago (Goldberg var. and chromatic fantasy and fugue). As far as I recall, she used revival harpsichords and *displayed all in all a very pianistic approach to the instrument*. I would never consider her an authority as to harpsichord playing.


What is a "pianistic approach" on a harpsichord? I thought that wasn't possible.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I do like to hear performances where pianists try to bring out all the voices in equal measure, but there are some like Edwin Fischer, Samuil Feinberg, and Andras Schiff who sometimes hide the voices. Sometimes this creates a convincing sense of "narrative" for me (voices struggling to be heard and emerging victorious at the end) that is probably not what Bach intended but as a fan of creative interpretation it strikes a chord with me. I like hearing how different pianists harness the potentials of the instrument to create color, contrast, and dynamic/textural variation with the counterpoint.


Feinberg was going to be one of my examples of unequal voicing and it's why I like his WTC so much.

Also to be considered is the "question and answer" approach to 2 part fugues which obviously uses unequal voicing. Listening to Gulda you sense this approach and it's heard in many recordings of the two part Inventions.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> What is a *"pianistic approach"* on a harpsichord? I thought that wasn't possible.


Mechanical and insensitive touch and rather legato playing. A revival harpsichord is better suited for sewing-machine approach a la Karl Richter, because it doesn't allow as much "contact" with the string as a period one. This is why the emergence of period instruments predated the emergence of sensitive harpsichordists


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

premont said:


> Mechanical and insensitive touch and rather legato playing. A revival harpsichord is better suited for sewing-machine approach a la Karl Richter, because it doesn't allow as much "contact" with the string as a period one. This is why the emergence of period instruments predated the emergence of sensitive harpsichordists


If anything I would associate a pianistic approach with more sensitivity since greater dynamic contrast is possible. Earlier in the thread, you have acknowledged that it is possible to create emphasis on voices with articulation and rubato on organs and harpsichord, yet you remain convinced that _no_ emphasis should be given to any voices, what makes you so sure that Bach did not give any extra emphasis to other voices using the techniques described?

You then seem to suggest that period harpsichords are better as they created sensitive harpsichordists, yet this seems to contradict your idea that no voices should be emphasized. If no voices are emphasized over others, why does it matter how sensitive the performer is? According to your theory the revival harpsichords should be ideal since they would allow for the least amount of nuance between voices.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

There are different types of nuance, not just fine control of volume. In harpsichord, liaison between notes, rhythmic rubato, the impact of touch are really a central part of technique. Piano players _can _do that, but they tend not to be so good at using those techniques in an informed and creative way -- in harpsichord music there's no indication in the score telling you what sort of portato to use, no indication about how and where to make an agogic hesitation.

Not Bach, it just happened to pop into my head and I thought you would appreciate it, here's an example of a real master of technique playing some Frescobaldi






You don't get this with so many early harpsichordists, certainly not Tureck ( I meantion her because I think she came up, but I could just as easily have chosen Karl Richter or probably any of them) playing harpsichord. Just listen:


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> There are different types of nuance, not just fine control of volume. In harpsichord, liaison between notes, rhythmic rubato, the impact of touch are really a central part of technique. Piano players _can _do that, but they tend not to be so good at using those techniques in an informed and creative way -- in harpsichord music there's no indication in the score telling you what sort of portato to use, no indication about how and where to make an agogic hesitation.


And that is a very nice account of the technique factors that I react to in harpsichord performance. Add to this the overall timbre and treble-bass balance of the instrument and you've got the bases for my preferences for harpsichord performances of the WTC.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> There are different types of nuance, not just fine control of volume. In harpsichord, liaison between notes, rhythmic rubato, the impact of touch are really a central part of technique. Piano players _can _do that, but they tend not to be so good at using those techniques in an informed and creative way -- in harpsichord music there's no indication in the score telling you what sort of portato to use, no indication about how and where to make an agogic hesitation.


You have some good points, and I agree with much of what you are saying. I enjoy listening to Bach on harpsichord and I think the HIP movement has produced some fine results in this area. What I'm skeptical of are blanket claims like 'all voices in a fugue must have equal emphasis'. For one I do not agree with such strict rules regarding interpretation, secondly I don't feel like every piece Bach composed is exactly the same dynamically in character. I don't think going in with a mind set that every piece should be approached precisely the same way is the best way to look at his music. Thirdly I don't think it is even realistic. Why? All of the types of harpsichord nuance you described are great, but the result of using them will be that there will be voices that have more emphasis at times than others.

So, my feeling is the strict "equal emphasis on all voices at all times" idea sounds like a recipe for producing mechanical and un-nuanced Bach interpretations.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

tdc said:


> If anything I would associate a pianistic approach with more sensitivity since greater dynamic contrast is possible. Earlier in the thread, you have acknowledged that it is possible to create emphasis on voices with articulation and rubato on organs and harpsichord, yet you remain convinced that _no_ emphasis should be given to any voices, what makes you so sure that Bach did not give any extra emphasis to other voices using the techniques described?
> 
> You then seem to suggest that period harpsichords are better as they created sensitive harpsichordists, yet this seems to contradict your idea that no voices should be emphasized. If no voices are emphasized over others, why does it matter how sensitive the performer is? According to your theory the revival harpsichords should be ideal since they would allow for the least amount of nuance between voices.


Once again, my earlier post:



premont said:


> My point of departure was the* dynamic* emphasis most pianists give to entrances of the subject in a Bach fugue. This dynamic emphasis works against the equality of the voices in a fugue. The fact that Bach entrusted his most illustrious fugues to the organ (or harpsichord) shows that he didn't put much emphasis on dynamic variation between the voices. Of course every voice in a fugue should be articulated individually, but there is no evidence for the thought that individual voices should stand dynamically out from each other.


I was talking about dynamic emphasis. A Bach fugue doesn't ask for dynamic differentiation between the voices. The dynamic variation is built into the fugue by means of the number of voices sounding and the tessitura. But of course each voice should be articulated individually. Read the post again.

The early "harpsichordists" were pianists with little understanding of harpsichord technique. On the other hand they weren't able to refine their harpsichord touch that much, because the revival harpsichords didn't allow it. This only became possible with restored period harpsichords or copies of these. Also the early harpsichordists apparently were unaware of the effect of rubato, and accordingly as to tempo they typically played in a mechanical sewing machine manner.

As to harpsichord technique this piece played by Karl Richter clearly shows my point. Look at his hands, and it is evident, that typical piano touch is involved throughout:






Or maybe even better here:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

premont said:


> The fact that Bach entrusted his most illustrious fugues to the organ (or harpsichord) shows that he didn't put much emphasis on dynamic variation between the voices.


This is not entirely true, the Art of Fugue contains some of his most illustrious fugues and it is not specified for any particular instrument. He composed fugues for other forces as well - choral, violin, concerto movements etc.



premont said:


> I was talking about dynamic emphasis. A Bach fugue doesn't ask for dynamic differentiation between the voices. The dynamic variation is built into the fugue by means of the number of voices sounding and the tessitura. But of course each voice should be articulated individually.


Fair enough, I should have read that closer. However there is also no evidence I am aware of that Bach was averse to dynamic emphasis in his (non keyboard) fugal works either. I see it as just another possible expressive tool pianists can use. Perhaps it should be used sparingly, but I don't see it as off limits, and personally I doubt Bach would either.

As far as harpsichordists I suspect I would agree with you generally that the approach on the period instruments is better.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

tdc said:


> This is not entirely true, the Art of Fugue contains some of his most illustrious fugues and it is not specified for any particular instrument. He composed fugues for other forces as well - choral, violin, concerto movements etc.


It's astonishing how the myth that the AoF wasn't written for any particular instrument continues to haunt the debate. Gustav Leonhardt already in the 1950es offered evidence that it is a keyboard work.

As a rule instructions concerning dynamic levels of individual parts are absent from Bach's works. Of course this doesn't exclude some variation, but as to the fugues of the violin solo sonatas, dynamic differentiation of the voices is impractible because one has got to strike all voices with the same bow. As to fugues in choral and concerto works the dynamic level varies in the run of the piece according to the number of singers and instruments used (solos f.i. on a lower dynamic level than full ensemble). Most of Bach's music unfolds by itself in a natural way, if you don't fiddle too much with the dynamics.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> It's astonishing how the myth that the AoF wasn't written for any particular instrument continues to haunt the debate. Gustav Leonhardt already in the 1950es offered evidence that it is a keyboard work.


No, he didn't. He offered a theory -- a fairly convincing one in my opinion -- and some reasons to accept the theory. The fact remains that the instrumentation of the work is unspecified.


> I was talking about dynamic emphasis. A Bach fugue doesn't ask for dynamic differentiation between the voices. The dynamic variation is built into the fugue by means of the number of voices sounding and the tessitura.


A Bach fugue doesn't ask for dynamic differentiation probably for the same reason that tempo isn't often indicated: a lot is left to the discretion of the performer(s), who were expected to have the good taste to determine the finer points by taking the overall character of the music into account. Bach didn't micromanage his music like Mahler did. For most academic fugal rules you can probably find instances of Bach ignoring them anyway.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> No, he didn't. He offered a theory -- a fairly convincing one in my opinion -- and some reasons to accept the theory. The fact remains that the instrumentation of the work is unspecified.


Bach didn't himself publish the AoF. C P E Bach and Altnikol didn't specify the instrumentation, because it was self-understood, that it was meant to be keyboard music. It is that simple.



consuono said:


> A Bach fugue doesn't ask for dynamic differentiation probably for the same reason that tempo isn't often indicated: a lot is left to the discretion of the performer(s), *who were expected to have the good taste to determine the finer points by taking the overall character of the music into account*. Bach didn't micromanage his music like Mahler did. For most academic fugal rules you can probably find instances of Bach ignoring them anyway.


Well, the problem is, that many pianists have other esthetic ideals than Bach had. Bach had not experienced the romantic age, and he could not have taken romantic ideals into consideration in his music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> No, he didn't. He offered a theory -- a fairly convincing one in my opinion -- and some reasons to accept the theory. The fact remains that the instrumentation of the work is unspecified.


I don't understand you. The reasons _are _evidence.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I don't understand you. The reasons _are _evidence.


No they aren't, they're speculation. Evidence would be a manuscript reference. Saying that the work fits on a harpsichord keyboard and therefore must have been written for the harpsichord is a guess. My own feeling is Bach left instrumentation blank deliberately.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Well, the problem is, that many pianists have other esthetic ideals than Bach had.


How do you know?


> Bach didn't himself publish the AoF. C P E Bach and Altnikol didn't specify the instrumentation, because it was self-understood, that it was meant to be keyboard music. It is that simple.


However, Bach did specify instrumentation for just about every other one of his keyboard works, sometimes quite specifically (e.g. a two-manual harpsichord). That isn't evidence either.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

In a later post I'd like to get to what I suspect is more important to the OP, the questions about listening strategies and appreciation, but first something that has irked me in the above technical discussion. There is no contradiction between emphasizing subject entrances and interesting stretto entrances and the equal treatment of voices. One is emphasizing such entrances in all voices, correct? And in Bach fugues they tend to be equally distributed among the voices, no? That is by definition equal treatment.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> One is emphasizing such entrances in all voices, correct?


Well if one voice is being emphasized then I would assume there's no more equality.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

It is possible that our modern attempts to recreate historical ideas are impossibly colored by our perceptions of improvements in instruments and expectations of performance. I like a lot of Bach's works on harpsichord and on piano, although I may prefer one or the other for specific works, or one performance over another. There is room for both, even if we must accept the limitations in being able to truly recreate something that Bach himself might have recognized.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> I like a lot of Bach's works on harpsichord and on piano, although I may prefer one or the other for specific works, or one performance over another.


This is something you see very often on this forum, but I've never seen it explained. Forgive me if I'm not being fair to the people who make this claim, but sometimes I think they're saying nothing more than they like to hear the music played on a piano!

For example, with all due respect to consuono, I think the problem is that the music of AoF demands a harpsichord to really flourish -- because of the jaggedness.

Look here's an example -- take the beautiful canon in the 10th. The music doesn't really have the flowing, connected lines which demand a sustained sound . By contrast, the melodies in the canons leap around wildly, and often break off suddenly. The AoF is made of pieces which are are floods of sudden inspirations; they manipulate a small number of motifs and modulate violently, careening from one end of the emotional spectrum to the other and back again. All this is typical for the chameleon-like, thrust-and-parry character of the harpsichord, and is utterly foreign to other instruments

Here's Koopman to prove the point. This is just NOT piano music! The textures are not piano textures.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I have known quite a few people who just don't like the sound of a harpsichord, for whatever reason. I am grateful that I am not one of them.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

consuono said:


> Well if one voice is being emphasized then I would assume there's no more equality.


All voices when and where the entrances occur.  It's absurd to emphasize second by second equality. The critical thing is that the voices be treated equally with respect to the relative emphasis on critical entrances versus lines less structurally salient at a given moment.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

JAS said:


> I have known quite a few people who just don't like the sound of a harpsichord, for whatever reason. I am grateful that I am not one of them.


That's me I can't imagine ever learning to tolerate it, but oh well.

As far as the AoF, Bach probably worked it out on keyboard but I thought it was written in open score? I think when pianists recognize that they have to play it as a transcription it works well. The "chemeleon-like, thrust-and-parry character" that Mandryka mentions (and which I agree with) can still be communicated on a piano IMO since the player can just alter their touch and attack. The harpsichord, on the other hand, is really only conducive to that one approach (is it possible to achieve a true, singing legato on the harpsichord without gaps between notes? Just asking, I'm far from an expert).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> The AoF is made of pieces which are are floods of sudden inspirations; they manipulate a small number of motifs and modulate violently, careening from one end of the emotional spectrum to the other and back again. All this is typical for the chameleon-like, thrust-and-parry character of the harpsichord, and is utterly foreign to other instruments


Of course it isn't "piano music" since the modern piano wasn't developed yet. But to say these qualities are unique to the harpsichord is going overboard. In fact I'd say that in all of that the harpsichord is probably inferior to the clavichord, which Bach is said to have preferred anyway. The harpsichord -- with the huge exception of the lute stop or buff stop -- sounds even more homogeneous in tone and hardly "chameleon-like", and the clavichord is more expressive. I think a piano has an advantage in that I can hear polyphonic lines more clearly and separately than on any other keyboard instrument, whether you want to take the lines or phrases or notes or motifs equally or unequally or whatever. :lol:


Allegro Con Brio said:


> (is it possible to achieve a true, singing legato on the harpsichord without gaps between notes?


No, but that's something that afflicts all keyboard instruments. "Legato" is just an illusion on a piano as well.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> How do you know?


I think most people with interest in CM are able to differentiate between Bach's and e.g. Schubert's estetics.



consuono said:


> However, Bach did specify instrumentation for just about every other one of his keyboard works, sometimes quite specifically (e.g. a two-manual harpsichord).


In many instances we don't know, because Bach's autographs haven't been preserved.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> No they aren't, they're speculation. Evidence would be a manuscript reference. Saying that the work fits on a harpsichord keyboard and therefore must have been written for the harpsichord is a guess. My own feeling is Bach left instrumentation blank deliberately.


You know there are manuscripts in Bach's hand with cpt from AoF written out for single manual keyboard? I can find the details. You also know, I expect, that open score was common for contrapuntal keyboard music? It's no less reasonable to suggest that Bach didn't intend keyboard on the basis of the open score with no specified instrument than it is to make the same suggestion for a Frescobaldi toccata.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Of course it isn't "piano music" since the modern piano wasn't developed yet. But to say these qualities are unique to the harpsichord is going overboard. In fact I'd say that in all of that the harpsichord is probably inferior to the clavichord, which Bach is said to have preferred anyway. The harpsichord -- with the huge exception of the lute stop or buff stop -- sounds even more homogeneous in tone and hardly "chameleon-like", and the clavichord is more expressive. I think a piano has an advantage in that I can hear polyphonic lines more clearly and separately than on any other keyboard instrument, whether you want to take the lines or phrases or notes or motifs equally or unequally or whatever.


I just don't agree with what you say either about pianos, at least if you mean modern ones, or about harpsichords, at least if you mean early ones. The piano sound is purer, less rich in partials -- that's what makes it chameleon-like. Listen to this (I've made it start with the music, there's a short intro which I've cut.






(It's very good I think, and a fabulous instrument, just close to where I live!)


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> Of course it isn't "piano music" since the modern piano wasn't developed yet. But to say these qualities are unique to the harpsichord is going overboard. In fact I'd say that in all of that the harpsichord is probably inferior to the clavichord, which Bach is said to have preferred anyway. The harpsichord -- with the huge exception of the lute stop or buff stop -- sounds even more homogeneous in tone and hardly "chameleon-like", and the clavichord is more expressive. I think a piano has an advantage in that I can hear polyphonic lines more clearly and separately than on any other keyboard instrument, whether you want to take the lines or phrases or notes or motifs equally or unequally or whatever. :lol:


Bach probably didn't either prefer the clavichord or the harpsichord, but he preferred each of them in different situations (e.g. clavichord for instruction and harpsichord for concerts) and he dedicated different music to them depending upon what kind of expression he wanted (e.g. harpsichord for the English suites and clavichord for the French suites).

Seen in this light I think he preferred harpsichord to clavichord for the AoF but also had the organ manualiter in mind except for the canons.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> I think a piano has an advantage in that I can hear polyphonic lines more clearly and separately than on any other keyboard instrument, whether you want to take the lines or phrases or notes or motifs equally or unequally or whatever. :lol:


Interesting, because the piano tones relative lack of partials makes it more difficult to me to hear all voices clearly on a piano compared to a harpsichord which has stronger partials.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> You know there are manuscripts in Bach's hand with cpt from AoF written out for single manual keyboard? I can find the details. You also know, I expect, that open score was common for contrapuntal keyboard music?


I am only aware of the canons and the three part mirror fugue in the arrangement for two keyboard instruments. And of course the unfinished fugue, but maybe it didn't belong to the AoF.



Mandryka said:


> It's no less reasonable to suggest that Bach didn't intend keyboard on the basis of the open score with no specified instrument than it is to make the same suggestion for a Frescobaldi toccata.


Frescobaldi's toccatas were not published in open score, but his recercari and capriccii were. But there are many other examples, Roberday's fugues, Scheidt's Tabulatura Nova to mention a few.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

premont said:


> I am only aware of the canons and the three part mirror fugue in the arrangement for two keyboard instruments. And of course the unfinished fugue, but maybe it didn't belong to the AoF.
> 
> Frescobaldi's toccatas were not published in open score, but his recercari and capriccii were. But there are many other examples, Roberday's fugues, Scheidt's Tabulatura Nova to mention a few.


Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I just don't agree with what you say either about pianos, at least if you mean modern ones, or about harpsichords, at least if you mean early ones. The piano sound is purer, less rich in partials -- that's what makes it chameleon-like. Listen to this (I've made it start with the music, there's a short intro which I've cut.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A harpsichord sounds icy and spidery. That may be a reason Bach became such a Lautenwerck fan.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> No, but that's something that afflicts all keyboard instruments. "Legato" is just an illusion on a piano as well.


*[ 21:32 ]*


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> *[ 21:32 ]*


*
The same thing applies.*


----------

