# Haprsichord or Piano - Would Bach Care?



## Guest (Apr 29, 2010)

In my relatively short period of time as an avid classical music listener, I started out listening to romanticized Baroque pieces, and enjoying them. Then I was introduced to HIP, and thought it was the bee's knees. How dare you play a piece on an instrument the composer never would have used!!!!

And then I came back down to earth. I like both. Do I enjoy Bach keyboard works played on a harpsichord? Absolutely. Would I give up Perahia's Bach keyboard recordings on a piano? Not on your life.

What spawned this issue? I acquired Gould's "A State of Wonder" album, which contains both the 50's and 80's recordings of the Goldberg Variations, as well as an interview with Gould himself. Very interesting. He commented on this topic. His observation was that Bach himself transcribed many of his works to be played on multiple instruments. One of his great works, The Art of Fugue, doesn't even indicate which instrument should be used, and has been very successfully recorded using harpsichords, organs, string quartets, etc. Gould even suggested that Bach would welcome a recording of the Brandenburg Concertos played on a synthesizer. In his opinion, Bach wouldn't have cared so much what instrument was used, so much as whether the purpose of the music was preserved. He went on to say that, given the fact that Bach himself often had to make do with what was available to him, he probably could have cared less whether the Mass in B Minor was performed with a 16 or 160-voice choir, so long as it was performed properly.

And I guess that is where I am now. So long as the essence of the music in conveyed, the instrument is not nearly as important. For me, I love the sound of the harpsichord, but in an ensemble. As a solo instrument, I can only take so much, whereas I can listen for hours to a piano being beautifully played.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

No, Bach wouldn't care. He'd get bored with the "purists", and he'd probably ask where he could get a decent bowl of coffee, and where he had left his tobacco pipe.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

DrMike said:


> And I guess that is where I am now. So long as the essence of the music in conveyed, the instrument is not nearly as important. For me, I love the sound of the harpsichord, but in an ensemble. As a solo instrument, I can only take so much, whereas I can listen for hours to a piano being beautifully played.


Precisely my sentiment. The harpsichord is lacy and provides a delicate texture as part of the continuo, but solo it's a noisy beast, especially the way it's recorded these days. I much prefer piano.

And I'm no purist. I began my classical voyage with synthesizer music. I have even heard Bach played on a ukelele to good effect. I don't think Bach would care either. One of his greatest works, The Art of the Fugue isn't even scored for instruments. Evidently it is purely abstract. (I'm wanting to do a synth realization of it someday.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

*Solo keyboard works*, probably not. His music speaks for itself: the densely contrapunctal writings of the vast majority of his solo keyboard works are purely into how the original theme can be developed by using the fugue. Whether played on the harpsichord, clavichord, virginal, organ or fortepiano (these were the main keyboard instruments of his day, and the music was probably played on a variety during his day), it didn't really matter. So if it works today for you on a modern piano, then its adds choice and variety. (Personally, I prefer the harpsichord tuned at correct Baroque pitch; somehow I must have been born with a pair of "period ears").

*Orchestral works*, probably does matter. It would be ridiculous to mix a modern piano in with Brandenburg 5, get the orchestral pitch all wrong, and make the piece sound like a damn Romantic chamber piece, which it is not. We know Bach improvised extensively on the harpsichord and was one of the greatest keyboard improvisor (along with Handel) of the late Baroque. Brandenburg 5 was one of the earliest solo keyboard concertos, conceived with entertainment value, probably with improvisation going on originally (as the expanded solo harpsichord part suggests), during an evening of fine entertainment for his aristocratic employer. In other words, Bach would have composed it with a certain sound in mind for this entertainment purpose. You would probbaly agree that a piano would sound absurd as a continuo instrument, in say his church cantatas, thus somehwere the line must be drawn.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

While I am a Bach fanatic I am with the rest here in that I have little use for the "purist" concepts of what Bach's keyboard works should be played on. I find that most of my favorite recordings of Bach's keyboard works (with the exclusion of the organ works) are those played upon piano (although I quite love Ralph Kirkpatrick's version of the WTC played on clavichord). I'll even suggest that I quite found Murray Perahia's recordings of the keyboard concertos to be enlightening... although I agree that usually I would go with the appropriate harpsichord for most orchestral recordings. Then again... I can't stand Beethoven's concertos... especially the _Emperor_... on the pianoforte, and I quite prefer the female soprano... in most cases... over the male "sopranos" in most operas in spite of the fact the originals may have been written for castrato.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> and I quite prefer the female soprano... in most cases... over the male "sopranos" in most operas in spite of the fact the originals *may have been written for castrato*.


Off topic notes:-

Agree, I prefer the female mezzo/equivalent over the male countertenor/soprano. Historically, it was a fact that Handel subsituted with the female mezzo/equivalent when the castrato was unavailable, which is a comforting fact.

Regarding the sentence I bolded above: note however, the historic castrato was *never a falsettist*, he had the full range and a male lung's capacity, whereas the modern day male countertenor/sporano is entirely a falsettist. So in case if there is any confusion, a modern day male castrato/soprano will never be anywhere near the equivalent of a castrato. For that reason, I much prefer a female mezzo/equivalent, as did Handel when the castrato was unavailable for an opera.

The modern day countertenor does better in church music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

As Harpsichord Concerto has pointed out above, Bach not only used the harpsichord but (later) the fortepiano. So I don't think he would mind which instrument his keyboard works should be played on.

I also agree with Harpsichord Concerto that the context is important - for example, the _Brandenburg Concertos _should only use a harpsichord. That said, I do enjoy Jacques Loussier's "jazzed up" versions of these concertos, for jazz trio (piano, double bass, drums, some recordings with orchestra as well). It's actually the drums which I don't like hearing much in his arrangements, the piano fits in pretty well. But for a "straight" classical version of the concertos, I agree that the harpsichord should be used...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I prefer the female mezzo/equivalent over the male countertenor/soprano. Historically, it was a fact that Handel subsituted with the female mezzo/equivalent when the castrato was unavailable, which is a comforting fact.

Regarding the sentence I bolded above: note however, the historic castrato was never a falsettist, he had the full range and a male lung's capacity, whereas the modern day male countertenor/sporano is entirely a falsettist. So in case if there is any confusion, a modern day male castrato/soprano will never be anywhere near the equivalent of a castrato. For that reason, I much prefer a female mezzo/equivalent, as did Handel when the castrato was unavailable for an opera.

The modern day countertenor does better in church music. 

Have you listened at all to Michael Maniaci? Just wondering.

http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Arias-Soprano-Michael-Maniaci/dp/B0030GBT0G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1272594490&sr=1-1

I actually quite like a few counter-tenors... including Andreas Scholl and Philippe Jaroussky. I just prefer a woman's voice for what is essentially a woman's role. Of course I quite loved Jaroussky's performance of these French melodies not at all usually associated with the counter-tenor. He brought something deliciously decadent to these songs of Reynaldo Hahn, Debussy, Faure, etc...:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the countertenor's voice. I have many recording of them in Baroque operas, often taking the title role. I'm just saying I _prefer_ the female mezzo/equivalent.

I have a Jaroussky CD singing opera arias by Johann Christian Bach. Andreas Scholl is also excellent. I have him on a Handel CD opera arias. Several others too, but not Maniaci. These days, I've been collecting entire works rather than compilations of arias.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

As a person obsessed with history and being historically correct, I hate listening to Bach on modern pianos (though of course I'm forced to play Bach on modern pianos).. I even hate listening to Mozart and Haydn piano sonatas on modern pianos. Why? Because the composer did not compose those pieces with the modern piano in mind. Bach specifically wrote most of his keyboard music for the organ or the newly 'equal-tempered' harpsichord, which has a considerably different timbre from the modern piano. The harpsichord has a balanced sound across the range of the keyboard which makes it perfectly suited for playing the "Well-Tempered Clavier." And Mozart wrote his piano sonatas specifically for the fortepiano, which has a lighter sound and faster decay than the modern piano... the modern piano just makes these pieces sound far more _important_ than they really are. Which is not to say that there's not a certain merit for performing Bach on the modern piano just to experiment with dynamics and voicing technique, which can actually make the works a bit more intuitive and easier to hear and understand.

It's obviously a complicated issue.. but I prefer historical instruments. It's the same reason I prefer listening to baroque string music being played by baroque string instruments.. the composers wrote with the baroque instruments in mind, which decay faster and have a different timbre from the modern instruments. It just makes sense.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I would say that piano is modern, equivalent replacement to harpischord more than totally diffrent instrument, so just like we don't have any good reason to play older music on historical violins etc. (expcept when we are curious to hear what it was like back in time) we also shouldn't consider piano recordings of Bach and other baroque geezers as modernization.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> As a person obsessed with history and being historically correct, I hate listening to Bach on modern pianos (though of course I'm forced to play Bach on modern pianos).. I even hate listening to Mozart and Haydn piano sonatas on modern pianos. Why? Because the composer did not compose those pieces with the modern piano in mind. Bach specifically wrote most of his keyboard music for the organ or the newly 'equal-tempered' harpsichord, which has a considerably different timbre from the modern piano. The harpsichord has a balanced sound across the range of the keyboard which makes it perfectly suited for playing the "Well-Tempered Clavier." And Mozart wrote his piano sonatas specifically for the fortepiano, which has a lighter sound and faster decay than the modern piano... the modern piano just makes these pieces sound far more _important_ than they really are. Which is not to say that there's not a certain merit for performing Bach on the modern piano just to experiment with dynamics and voicing technique, which can actually make the works a bit more intuitive and easier to hear and understand.
> 
> It's obviously a complicated issue.. but I prefer historical instruments. It's the same reason I prefer listening to baroque string music being played by baroque string instruments.. the composers wrote with the baroque instruments in mind, which decay faster and have a different timbre from the modern instruments. It just makes sense.


Granted that is what Bach had in mind when originally writing those works, but then, as stated earlier, Bach himself transcribed many of his works to be played on other instruments. I think that is one of the wonders of his music - that it does appear to be so timeless. The genius of his music is not in any particular instrument that he wrote for, rather in the brilliance with which he wrote it. As has been pointed out, we don't even definitively know what instrument the Art of Fugue was written for, and yet it adapts itself well to various instruments, both historic and modern.

Were Bach to have had at his disposal a modern piano, there might have been some differences, but as a whole I don't think they would have been significantly different, at least for solo pieces. As has already been remarked, in ensembles, and particularly as part of the continuo, I definitely agree that the harpsichord is preferable to the piano.

And as to issues such as Mozart writing specifically for the fortepiano, we must remember that is what he had. Would he be upset with the modern instrument being used? Honestly, I doubt it. He wrote works for so many different instruments.

Consider a person from that era being transported to our time. If they wanted to travel, would they still choose to go by boat or horse-drawn carriage, because that is what they preferred, or would they choose modern forms of transportation? Your implication regarding their choice of instruments seems to be preference, rather than necessity. Were I to write a keyboard work today, I could only write for an instrument that exists. It would be hard to anticipate some future instrument not yet created.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

If we're going to be elitist about it, surely Bach would be disgusted at anyone who doesn't attend a concert in person to listen to a proper performance - never mind these little plastic rings and abstract .mp3 files!


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

He might object to .mp3 files, as they are "lossy" and you lose sound quality. But he would be okay with lossless audio file formats like FLAC.

Sorry, had to throw that in.

As I recall reading, he wasn't all that happy with performances of his time, at least where he was there in Leipzig, complaining that he could not get enough talented performers.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

I ask myself, "which instrument would serve Bach best?" It has to be the piano. The harpsichord doesn't have the scope for the differences in colour and texture that make Bach heavenly. Bach shouldn't sound like two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof.


----------



## Tarantella (Apr 22, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> Bach shouldn't sound like two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof.


I'd say that's very subjective  Actually I think it is a very underrated instrument. It doesn't have the potential of the piano but its timbre is very rich.

I think it's perfectly fine to play Bach at the piano whether the historicists like it or not, but personally I'd rather listen to this music at the harpsichord.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

I came to know Bach through Cantata No. 147 and his harpsichord music (Klavierbuchs I & II). His harpsichord concertos just sound so out of this world. 

I'm not a piano fan at all - looking at Bach's repertoire, I guess he used it for a lot of reasons others like yet devoted enough love for the harpsichord - a beautiful instrument in itself. Actually, its timbres and pitch sounds are far more pleasing to my ears. I'm more than thrilled when a new harpsichord work comes out. Piano works on the other hand, come a dime a dozen


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Granted that is what Bach had in mind when originally writing those works, but then, as stated earlier, Bach himself transcribed many of his works to be played on other instruments. I think that is one of the wonders of his music - that it does appear to be so timeless. The genius of his music is not in any particular instrument that he wrote for, rather in the brilliance with which he wrote it. As has been pointed out, we don't even definitively know what instrument the _Art of Fugue_ was written for, and yet it adapts itself well to various instruments, both historic and modern.

I might point out that a work such as the _Well Tempered Clavier_ was not composed in a manner to illustrate the capabilities of a single instrument such as the harpsichord. The title itself refers to the "appropriately tuned keyboard instrument... giving no clue as to which instrument that should be. That might have included the harpsichord, clavichord, organ, or early piano-forte. It has also been noted that many of the so-called "purists" who insist upon playing Bach on the harpsichord are in actuality quite often even more outlandish and mannered in their interpretations than many pianists.

In a completely different example of the question of Bach's instrumentation, there is the example of the _Toccata and Fugue in D-minor_, which in recent years has been suggested by some musicologists as having been originally written for violin (and by others as not having been by Bach at all):






Consider a person from that era being transported to our time. If they wanted to travel, would they still choose to go by boat or horse-drawn carriage, because that is what they preferred, or would they choose modern forms of transportation? Your implication regarding their choice of instruments seems to be preference, rather than necessity.

I would be somewhat wary of the idea that an artist would have used a given technology or medium had it been available to him, thus the particulars of the medium/technology are irrelevant. Yes... Botticelli may have used oil paint had it been more available to him... but as it wasn't, he focused upon egg tempera and developed a visual artistic language that employed that medium in a masterful manner. By the same token, we may suggest that the great film-makers of the 1910s-1950s may have drooled over the expressive potential of full technicolor... to say noting of today's CGI technology... but they turned the "limitations" of black and white into an incredible visual language and no matter what Ted Turner thinks, there is no way I would want _Casablanca, Psycho, Double Indemnity_, etc... to be "colorized". Bach's keyboard works are unique in that they are so abstract... and in that they were not composed with a specific single instrument with a specific sound color in mind. This does not mean I want a free-for-all of instrumentation. Bach on synthesizer? I doubt it would be something I want to hear. And that is what it comes down to. My preferences are based upon individual circumstances or examples. Rene Jacobs' HIP recordings of Mozart's operas have been absolutely eye-opening to me... but I won't give up Perahia's recordings of Bach's keyboard concertos on piano or Nathan Millstein's or Henryk Szeryng's recordings of Bach's _Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin_ on instruments that may not have been appropriate baroque violin's of the time and place in which Bach composed the works.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Bach shouldn't sound like two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof.



Indeed!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hold on a minute... Haven't all of you missed the really, _really_ obvious point that all of Bach's music should be arranged for a string quartet?


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> Bach shouldn't sound like two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof.


I guess that's a performance to see in the flesh?

I gave up listening to the piano years ago. It's one truly horrible instrument that I really want to take a hammer to every time I hear its irritating plonk plonk notes. Well, apart from Debussy's Preludes, Scriabin's Sonatas; Szymanowski's Mazurkas', Satie's fun stuff and errr.....well maybe I do like it then.

Have you heard Bob van Asperen's Das Wohltempiererte Klavier (Buchs I & II) for harpsichord? What piano version would you recommend on a par to Bob's work then?


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Tarantella said:


> I'd say that's very subjective  Actually I think it is a very underrated instrument. It doesn't have the potential of the piano but its timbre is very rich.
> 
> .... personally I'd rather listen to this music at the harpsichord.


Yay! That makes me so happy too!

Music for the harpsichord (preferably in concerto) is one of my slowly growing small areas of new found classical luv


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Head_case said:


> I gave up listening to the piano years ago. It's one truly horrible instrument that I really want to take a hammer to every time I hear its irritating plonk plonk notes.


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I will smite you for that! :angry:

erhem, anyway.. for me listening to music is not just about the notes on the page or the emotions they convey, it's also about the context in which the music is presented. I want to hear Bach's music as it would have sounded to Bach, which is why I prefer the period instruments.. and it's not just the time period issue, you have to take into account the playing environment. Haydn and other composers of early keyboard music intended for their music to be played in a domestic setting for family in friends, not as concert music. That's why I find it disconcerting to hear Haydn sonatas played by modern grand pianos in these giant concert halls with all that reverb. I'd rather listen to it on a period fortepiano in a comparatively closed setting.

maybe I'm being paranoid about this, but it just makes me feel smarter to listen to music in the more 'authentic' way.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> Bach shouldn't sound like two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof.


That opinion is as unoriginal and as superficial as Edward Elgar. Though too bad we hear far more of "skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof" these days than the music of Elgar.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

DrMike said:


> And I guess that is where I am now. So long as the essence of the music in conveyed, the instrument is not nearly as important. For me, I love the sound of the harpsichord, but in an ensemble. As a solo instrument, *I can only take so much*, whereas I can listen for hours to a piano being beautifully played.


Yes, one can only take so much. 20 seconds or so is my limit. I think Bach would have been fascinated by our pianos and would have cursed (mildly of course) his misfortune of being born in the harpsichord era.



Edward Elgar said:


> I ask myself, "which instrument would serve Bach best?" It has to be the piano. The harpsichord doesn't have the scope for the differences in colour and texture that make Bach heavenly. Bach shouldn't sound like two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof.


Aah, I _knew _I recognized that spooky harpsichord sound from somewhere...


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2010)

I am not so anti-harpsichord as others. In fact, I enjoy it. I have the complete keyboard works of Byrd performed by Davitt Moroney, played on a variety of keyboard instruments that would have been available to Byrd (harpsichord, clavichord, clavecin, chamber organ, etc.) and really enjoy it. I also have a recording of Suzuki performing Bach's Fantasias and Fugues, which is also wonderful. I think Bach would have liked his works played on all of these AND the piano . . . so long as they were played properly.

I think the problem more often than not is the engineering and recording is more difficult than the piano - it is much easier to make the harpsichord sound harsh and unpleasant. It is like playing a guitar with your fingers or with a pick.


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

Well, frankly, if Bach had been alive in the late 1950's and early '60's, when I was starting my musical career, I'd probably have found him somewhere like the Jazz Showcase in San Francisco, trading 'riffs' with Dave Brubeck. 

But--and I say this with a great deal of caution--I really prefer Bach's KEYBOARD music on a Harpsichord, especially the English and French Suites. They 'dance' more on that instrument, at least for me. And I don't think I'm being a 'purist' when I say so--Murray Perihia plays absolutely DELICIOUS Bach on the piano, at least IMO, but for the most part, I find Bach on the piano a little too 'flat'. And I'm a pianist. And yes, I've played Bach--though almost exclusively the Bach I play are transcriptions from the choral works or Cantatas for accompanying purposes, so it's not really 'keyboard' music at all. 

And before you think I'm again a 'purist', I don't mind telling you that I have no problem whatsoever with the keyboard works of Handel, Scarlatti or Soler on a modern piano. And if that sounds somewhat contradictory--well, the only explanation that I can give is my particular 'ear' for the sound. 

Tom


----------



## prustage (May 22, 2010)

For me, hearing Angela Hewitt's piano performance of the 48 was an epiphanal moment. It wasn't the difference in timbre between the piano and previous harpsichord versions I had heard. It was the degree of control she had over the dynamics of the sound that is only possible with a piano. I love the golden twang of a harpsichord but the fact is, no matter how good a player you are, the mechanics of the harpsichord do not allow that wonderful ppp to fff range and the degree of sound sculpting it allows.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I will smite you for that! :angry:
> 
> erhem, anyway.. for me listening to music is not just about the notes on the page or the emotions they convey, it's also about the context in which the music is presented. I want to hear Bach's music as it would have sounded to Bach, which is why I prefer the period instruments.. and it's not just the time period issue, you have to take into account the playing environment. Haydn and other composers of early keyboard music intended for their music to be played in a domestic setting for family in friends, not as concert music. That's why I find it disconcerting to hear Haydn sonatas played by modern grand pianos in these giant concert halls with all that reverb. I'd rather listen to it on a period fortepiano in a comparatively closed setting.
> 
> maybe I'm being paranoid about this, but it just makes me feel smarter to listen to music in the more 'authentic' way.


Lol. You don't really like piano either. You just don't know it yet 

Have you heard:










The Harpsichord Partita is derived from Bach's Partita. I think he uses a Bachesque fugue within the textures of the harpsichord piece. It is quite incredible - if Bach was alive to hear this, he would not only be envying Szymanski's hair-do and musical ingenuity over his own pert pommelled wig and the relentless/countless fugues composed under said wig.

Harpsichord +1 Piano -56


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Head_case said:


> Lol. You don't really like piano either. You just don't know it yet


Really? Cause I just bought this: 









I'm absolutely loving it.. and the Scarlatti and Haydn works are played on fortepiano, just like they should be. The Chopin is even played on an 1842 piano for good measure! 

And no, I haven't heard of that (not much into modern music yet) but it sounds intriguing.. kinda like the 24 fugues from Hindemith..


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

CDs lol. I guess that goes with piano music 










Bring on Slyvia Marlowe anytime!!

PS - Hindemith is fascinating. Ludus tonalis is very distinctive too. His own language is very different from Szymanski's.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

mor' harpsichord luv


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Would Bach care? From what I’ve read about him, I believe he would have cared for the latest & greatest in instruments. Had he heard Glenn Gould on piano, I think he would have flipped out with approval & admiration. What a headache some of these clavichords and harpsichords must have been to keep in tune and held together. He would most likely have looked forward rather than back. Even now the recording engineers of today don’t seem to know how to record the harpsichord without the irritation that could make even coffee nervous and sounding like the mic was stuffed like a turkey inside the instrument. Finding a harpsichord that actually sounds good in itself also seems to be a miracle with only rare exceptions. Where is Wanda Landowska’s beautiful harpsichord sound when we need it? She was exceptional and knew what to do. If one is going to do harpsichord, I believe she did it right and Bach would have approved & admired her too.


----------



## JohnD (Jan 27, 2014)

He'd be okay with it. He might even be ok with your misspelling "harpsichord" in your thread title.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I think he would like the piano, that full rich sound, who can resist it, not even the great man himself.
( Not to mention they stay in tune much longer)


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Pugg said:


> I think he would like the piano, that full rich sound, who can resist it, not even the great man himself.
> ( *Not to mention they stay in tune much longer*)


Modern pianos are generally tuned in a way, Bach would not approve (equal tuning).


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Consider a person from that era being transported to our time. If they wanted to travel, would they still choose to go by boat or horse-drawn carriage, because that is what they preferred, or would they choose modern forms of transportation? Your implication regarding their choice of instruments seems to be preference, rather than necessity.




Each way of transportation may carry with them their own advantages. I can very well understand the people who prefer the "calmer" ways of transportation, allowing the soul and the body to arrive to the destination at the same time.


----------



## Chromatose (Jan 18, 2016)

I believe I remember reading he got a chance to look at the immediate precursor to the types of early pianos and was highly enthusiastic about what the future held for keyboard instruments.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Chromatose said:


> I believe I remember reading he got a chance to look at the immediate precursor to the types of early pianos and was highly enthusiastic about what the future held for keyboard instruments.


Yes, he got acquaintance with the early fortepiano (Silbermann instruments) relatively late in his life, but I do not recall having read, that he was that enthusiastic about them, - he just approved them. On the contrary his son Carl Philip Emanuel emphasized his fathers love for the clavichord.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

I simply adore the harpsichord and Bach's music for it but I think if he had lived even longer he would have begun composing for the fortepiano (I believe that his Musical Offering is composed for fortepiano as Frederick the Great had a large collection) probably in collaboration with his good friend Silbermann. I would always want works written for the harpsichord performed on the harpsichord primarily. It makes me sad that people will listen to Bach on the piano but never hear the same work on the instrument of composition. Another thing to consider is the range of harpsichords available to Bach, German harpsichords were more robust than the French or Italian instruments with deeper sonorities. Added to this is the fact that Bach favoured both the pedal harpsichord (like a home organ/harpsichord hybrid) and the lute harpsichord. Please, this is a plea to people, try and hear some of Bach's music on these two instruments. It's period all the way for me I just wish more people would give it a chance.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Like all Baroque composers, Bach was no musical purist. He would not have cared. Indeed he would have been amazed people are still playing his music


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Is there any of Bach's keyboard music which fits more naturally on piano than on harpsichord or organ or clavichord? Music which seems to demand piano effects.

I've heard parts of WTC2 and Opfer on piano, and indeed AoF. My feeling is no, not even (eg) the E major Fugue from WTC2, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It isn't so much whether Bach would mind his music being played on a piano (of course, he wouldn't!) but what he might have written for our modern pianos if he had heard one.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

It always bothers me when people come out an confidently state that the piano is much better for Bach's music as it sounds somewhat like second guessing one of the greatest composers of all time. I know better than Bach and can improve upon what he wrote!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

premont said:


> Modern pianos are generally tuned in a way, Bach would not approve (equal tuning).


Not approve? His writing of the Well Tempered Clavier was not necessarily to put one tuning over another, but to show the capabilities of 'Well or 'Werckmeister' temperament'. Equal temperament tuning was in use during the baroque era, by composers such as Frescobaldi and later Bach's sons.

In any case don't think this has anything to do with the sonic and dynamic qualities of the piano as an instrument anyway.

It seems obvious that Bach enjoyed the more responsive touch of the non-fretted clavichord and that is much closer to the system of the piano than is the harpsichord. It also seems obvious to me that writing for the harpsichord as a performance keyboard instrument (other than the organ) was Bach's only choice since the clavichord was not a concert instrument. I believe he would gladly have written for something like the Walter pianos available to Mozart had they been around earlier in his career long enough for him to have developed a feel for them.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> It isn't so much whether Bach would mind his music being played on a piano (of course, he wouldn't!) but what he might have written for our modern pianos if he had heard one.


I think he would have jumped at the chance because of the new possibilities of the sustain and una corda pedals. A much different type of writing is possible by using them. He might have written the "Well-Pedaled Pianoforte."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> It isn't so much whether Bach would mind his music being played on a piano (of course, he wouldn't!)


Well, he wouldn't mind I guess if the piano were adequate for what he was trying to achieve. Look, he probably wouldn't much have wanted The Italian Concerto to be played on a bagpipe . . .



Enthusiast said:


> what he might have written for our modern pianos if he had heard one.


How can anyone possibly know? It's a pointless question


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Finding a harpsichord that actually sounds good in itself also seems to be a miracle with only rare exceptions. Where is Wanda Landowska's beautiful harpsichord sound when we need it? She was exceptional and knew what to do. If one is going to do harpsichord, I believe she did it right and Bach would have approved & admired her too.


Personally, I find her instrument (and how it is recorded) virtually unbearable.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> Not approve? His writing of the Well Tempered Clavier was not necessarily to put one tuning over another, but to show the capabilities of 'Well or 'Werckmeister' temperament'. Equal temperament tuning was in use during the baroque era, by composers such as Frescobaldi and later Bach's sons.


The claim about Frescobaldi rests upon rather feeble ground, and Bach's sons are hardly Baroque age.

Consensus today is that equal tuning did not become standard until in the course of the 19th century.

http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

premont said:


> The claim about Frescobaldi rests upon rather feeble ground, and Bach's sons are hardly Baroque age.
> 
> Consensus today is that equal tuning did not become standard until in the course of the 19th century.
> 
> http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html


Thanks. A most interesting read. You see though, that when he reaches the conclusion he's not promoting Mean tuning, or Werckmeister/Well, but one closest to Equal temperament: Young's well temperament.

He also acknowledges that



> Bach was, however, interested in a tuning that would allow him the possibility of working in all 12 keys, that did not make certain triads off-limits...


All this aside though, it still doesn't mean Bach would have been hostile to the piano and its dynamic qualities. Or against the idea that it suits some of his music very well.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> Thanks. A most interesting read. You see though, that when he reaches the conclusion he's not promoting Mean tuning, or Werckmeister/Well, but one closest to Equal temperament: Young's well temperament. .


Yes, the author prefers Young's well temperament for his own private use, but this tuning was published by Young in 1799, and for that reason probably not relevant in the context of Bach.



eugeneonagain said:


> All this aside though, it still doesn't mean Bach would have been hostile to the piano and its dynamic qualities. Or against the idea that it suits some of his music very well.


Certainly not, but neither does it prove, that he would have been enthusiastic about it at all.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Edward Elgar said:


> I ask myself, "which instrument would serve Bach best?" It has to be the piano. The harpsichord doesn't have the scope for the differences in colour and texture that make Bach heavenly. *Bach shouldn't sound like two skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof*.


Well said, Ed. :clap: I quite agree. I call the harpsichord the 'short-tempered clavier': sounds like it just wants to beat (or more accurately 'pluck') your ears into submission, and I shan't submit.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

premont said:


> Certainly not, but neither does it prove, that he would have been enthusiastic about it at all.


Well I noted earlier that he, like Handel, loved the clavichord for its dynamics and this suggests to me that he would probably have favoured a good piano over the harpsichord. 
I don't dislike the harpsichord, but there are quite a few folk who are rather obstinate about denying its lack of dynamic contrasts.

Of course it has to be conceded that none of this can be conclusively proven without a time machine, but I am just answering the hypothetical question according to reason.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> .... there are quite a few folk who are rather obstinate about denying its lack of dynamic contrasts.


The lack of dynamic contrasts of the harpsichord (except for the option of terraced dynamics) can not be a secret to anyone. But the point is, that Bach's keyboard music expresses itself in other ways (counterpoint, rhythm, harmony, architecture e.g.) to achieve the wanted affect, so a need for dynamic effects are not built into the music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

premont said:


> The lack of dynamic contrasts of the harpsichord (except for the option of terraced dynamics) can not be a secret to anyone. But the point is, that Bach's keyboard music expresses itself in other ways (counterpoint, rhythm, harmony, architecture e.g.) to achieve the wanted affect, so a need for dynamic effects are not built into the music.


This is not entirely true though is it? Counterpoint is not a form of dynamic expression and isn't used in that capacity. Neither is harmony or rhythm. No doubt he relied upon these for texture, but in his Italian Concerto the second movement is almost tailor-made for the piano's dynamics.

On the whole it's all done and dusted because Bach is not here to state his preferences. The fact remains that his music (not all of it) works well on the piano. Playing it on a piano is not sacrilege.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> in his Italian Concerto the second movement is almost tailor-made for the piano's dynamics.


I'm interested in the idea that some of Bach's music is tailor made for piano dynamics, some people have argued that about some of Scarlatti's sonatas. Can you spell it out for me?

For the second movement of the Italian Concerto, the performances I enjoy most are all harpsichord I think, Asperen and Leonhardt for example. But I may be forgetting one or missing something about the music.

Of course you may just be saying that you like it on piano, which is nice but less interesting.



eugeneonagain said:


> This is not entirely true though is it? Counterpoint is not a form of dynamic expression and isn't used in that capacity. Neither is harmony or rhythm.
> 
> .


I have a strange feeling of déjà vu here, I'm sure we've been over this ground before, but I want to tell you that you're underestimating the capacity of rhythmic rubato to create the illusion of dynamic variation.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I'm interested in the idea that some of Bach's music is tailor made for piano dynamics, some people have argued that about some of Scarlatti's sonatas. Can you spell it out for me?


In short:no. If you are interested in it, you'll have it investigate it yourself.



Mandryka said:


> For the second movement of the Italian Concerto, *the performances I enjoy most are all harpsichord* I think, Asperen and Leonhardt for example. But I may be forgetting one or missing something about the music.
> 
> *Of course you may just be saying that you like it on piano, which is nice but less interesting*.


Ditto, _mutatis mutandis_.



Mandryka said:


> I have a strange feeling of déjà vu here, I'm sure we've been over this ground before, but I want to tell you that you're underestimating the capacity of rhythmic rubato to create the illusion of dynamic variation.


Do you know what, I don't think I am. Dynamics are dynamics, rhythm is rhythm. You make music rhythmic with rhythm and use dynamics to impart the effects dynamics give. They sometimes work together, but they don't do one another's jobs.

Even Bach on the harpsichord uses dynamic variation, but it just isn't as subtle as the piano. I don't know why people can't just accept this simple fact. It doesn't mean Bach failed or needs to be 'improved', it's just different interpretations with the tools we have. His music adapts very well indeed.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

I play both the piano and the harpsichord, and love both instruments.

It is entirely possible to play Bach on the piano, but you must be faithful to how Bach intended for his music to be played: Without the sustaining pedal and playing both hands with equal force, to emphasise the counterpoint.

One exception is Bach's partitas for the lute harpsichord ("lautenwerk"), imho. I play them on the piano as well as the harpsichord and they sound infinitely better on the latter, especially on the lute setting.

By the way, there is huge variation between different kinds of harpsichords and it is just not true that they all sound like "skeletons copulating on a corrugated iron roof". The better ones have 2 manuals and a lute setting, and they sound exquisite individually as well as coupled together.

Oh and that would be corrugated *steel* roof, not iron


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Agreed concerning the lute setting.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

LesCyclopes said:


> I play both the piano and the harpsichord, and love both instruments.
> 
> It is entirely possible to play Bach on the piano, but you must be faithful to how Bach intended for his music to be played: Without the sustaining pedal and playing both hands with equal force, to emphasise the counterpoint.
> 
> ...


What are the partitas for lautenwerk? Or are you saying you like CU 1 with the lute stop for all the movements?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> In short:no. If you are interested in it, you'll have it investigate it yourself.


Well, I think you're wrong, there's nothing tailor made for piano dynamics about the second movement of the Italian Concerto.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Well, I think you're wrong, there's nothing tailor made for piano dynamics about the second movement of the Italian Concerto.


I'll have to take your word for it then won't I?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> This is not entirely true though is it? Counterpoint is not a form of dynamic expression and isn't used in that capacity. Neither is harmony or rhythm.


Counterpoint and voice leading may be used for dynamic variation. The dynamic level is higher, when all voices are playing and active, than when only two voices are playing and less active.



eugeneonagain said:


> .... but in his Italian Concerto the second movement is almost tailor-made for the piano's dynamics.


Nor do I understand, what you mean with this. There are not even any echo-effects.



eugeneonagain said:


> On the whole it's all done and dusted because Bach is not here to state his preferences. The fact remains that his music (not all of it) works well on the piano. *Playing it on a piano is not sacrilege*.


Certainly not. Bach's keyboard music can also be played on el-organ, accordion et.c., but they are not my preferences.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

premont said:


> Counterpoint and voice leading *may be* used for dynamic variation. The dynamic level is higher, when all voices are playing and active, than when only two voices are playing and less active.


This is not an indication in a score. Counterpoint is the weaving of melodic material between voices, not a dynamics exercise. To show any dynamic variation desired by the composer, it would have to be indicated. Things like crescendo marks I would expect to affect the dynamics, not the counterpoint which as it happens involves ALL the voices taking part.

If counterpoint was enough to do that job he wouldn't have bothered writing 'piano' and 'forte' all over the manuscript of the Italian Concerto...



premont said:


> Nor do I understand, what you mean with this. There are not even any echo-effects.


Echo? Is there any echo on a piano? Are we talking about reverb? As above the dynamics he puts there are better handled by a piano. It may not have been exactly what he had in mind when writing for his 2-manual harpsichord, but is that a problem anyway?



premont said:


> Certainly not. Bach's keyboard music can also be played on el-organ, accordion et.c., but they are not my preferences.


That's okay. I'm fine hearing it on harpsichord, piano, clavichord, whatever. The music travels well between instruments,


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

Why do people assume that since they prefer the greater range of a modern piano, that the older composers would have to? I seriously doubt it. I think they would have found it extremely frustrating to play music that they had so carefully composed & specifically tailored to the potentialities (& sounds) of the instruments they knew--such as a harpsichord (and especially a manual double harpsichord!, as with Bach's Goldberg Variations), clavichord, and fortepiano--on such an unwieldy, overly resonant monstrosity as a modern grand (a joke), which in many respects isn't very similar to the keyboard instruments that they knew and composed for. We mustn't forget that Bach actually enjoyed playing on a wimpy little clavichord at home!

Not to mention that certain musical meanings inevitably get modified, even radically changed when his scores are adapted to a piano. Indeed, it might have driven him mad to hear so many subtle & not so subtle shades of meaning in his music get changed into something else that he didn't intend. (I often feel that way when I listen to Andras Schiff's Decca Bach recordings. What is he doing? I think Bach would have found his interpretations a weird trip.) Even Gould admitted that his Bach recordings were only "transcriptions" of Bach's keyboard music to the piano. While harpsichordist Scott Ross once said that Gould was "so far off the mark" in his understanding of Bach's scores that "you'd need a 747 to bring him back".

Might Bach have felt the same way? I think possibly. Though granted, he might also have been fascinated to hear how his music has been transcribed into something strangely romanticized on such a foreign sounding instrument. He might have found it oddly entertaining.

The keyboard works that I think Bach would have been immensely relieved to find a modern grand for are his keyboard concertos. Outside of period performances that employ small chamber ensembles (i.e., one instrument on a part)--which is the only way these concertos can be performed on a harpsichord without the instrument becoming mostly lost & engulfed by the rest of the ensemble (unless the harpsichord is closely miked to make it louder than is natural, as they do on recordings)--I think Bach would have recognized the advantages to performing these concertos on a (louder) grand piano.

Though, of course, if he'd had a piano, he would have composed different music. So, I'm glad that he didn't have access to a modern grand.

In addition, I also expect that Bach would have been open to hearing "The Art of Fugue" played on a piano, since he didn't specify which instrument or instruments it was composed for. And maybe his late "A Musical Offering" too. And possbily the late Toccatas, as well?

With that said, I do think that Bach would have been more kindly disposed towards hearing his keyboard music played by on a modern grand by a harpsichordist, such as pianist turned harpsichordist turned back to pianist Virginia Black has recently done with the 6 French Suites. I bet he would have liked her performances:

https://www.amazon.com/Six-Partitas...518485511&sr=1-1&keywords=virginia+black+bach


----------



## martonic (Feb 13, 2018)

I really like Angela Hewitt's interpretations of Bach keyboard works on the modern piano. She has a great "finger legato", uses very little pedal and separates the voices with crystal clarity. To me, this is superior to anything that can be achieved when playing a harpsichord. Nobody knows for sure, but I consider Bach's Cantatas, for example, as his endorsement of dynamic contrast and for this reason I believe he would have been thrilled to play his own works on the modern piano.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> This is not an indication in a score. Counterpoint is the weaving of melodic material between voices, not a dynamics exercise. To show any dynamic variation desired by the composer, it would have to be indicated. Things like crescendo marks I would expect to affect the dynamics, not the counterpoint which as it happens involves ALL the voices taking part.


I meant, that the dynamic variation is - so to say - built into the music and does not need any actual dynamic variations in touch.



eugeneonagain said:


> If counterpoint was enough to do that job he wouldn't have bothered writing 'piano' and 'forte' all over the manuscript of the Italian Concerto...


The Italian concerto is written in concert form (imaginary soli as opposed to imaginary tuttis - the effect achieved by change of manuals), and it is not particularly contrapuntal in its layout.



eugeneonagain said:


> Echo? Is there any echo on a piano? Are we talking about reverb? As above the dynamics he puts there are better handled by a piano. It may not have been exactly what he had in mind when writing for his 2-manual harpsichord, but is that a problem anyway?


If there had been prescribed echo effects, this might justify some variations in dynamics, even if this also just as well might have been done by a change of manuals.

Many years ago there was a short period of time when I thought, that Bach pianists ought to use the pianos technical possibilities to the full, but I quickly realized, that this betrays the music, and since then I have preferred the more restrained (and informed) approach. Wolfgang Rübsam and Virginia Black display this approach in a nice way IMO.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> What are the partitas for lautenwerk? Or are you saying you like CU 1 with the lute stop for all the movements?


I mean partitas Bach wrote specifically for the lute-harpsichord, such as BWV 997.

They don't translate well at all to the piano. In fact, they sound better on the guitar than on the piano.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

LesCyclopes said:


> I mean partitas Bach wrote specifically for the lute-harpsichord, such as BWV 997.
> 
> They don't translate well at all to the piano. In fact, they sound better on the guitar than on the piano.


Ah now I see, I'd always thought these were written for lute!


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Bach owned lute-harpsichords, but he never specifically mentions the lute-harpsichord, and there is no evidence to suggest he composed anything for it. In the notes to her recording of Bach's works played on the lute-harpsichord, Elizabeth Farr points out that the Suite in C minor, BWV 997 is an original work for lute that may have been written for the master lutenists Weiss or Kropffgans. David Schulenberg in his "Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach" calls it "Bach's strongest original lute work".


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Ah now I see, I'd always thought these were written for lute!


The problem is, that these works are almost unplayable on lute, and for that reason many thinks, that they were written for lute-harpsichord.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Bach owned lute-harpsichords, but he never specifically mentions the lute-harpsichord, and there is no evidence to suggest he composed anything for it. In the notes to her recording of Bach's works played on the lute-harpsichord, Elizabeth Farr points out that the Suite in C minor, BWV 997 is an original work for lute that may have been written for the master lutenists Weiss or Kropffgans. David Schulenberg in his "Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach" calls it "Bach's strongest original lute work".


Kropfgans - a name I've rarely heard but I know just one piece, a sonata in c minor, played by Joachim Held, and it's rather pleasant, empfindsamser stil the way Held plays it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

premont said:


> The problem is, that these works are almost unplayable on lute, and for that reason many thinks, that they were written for lute-harpsichord.


I just found this article, which looks interesting

https://www.thisisclassicalguitar.com/bachs-lute-suites-clive-titmuss/


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

premont said:


> The problem is, that these works are almost unplayable on lute, and for that reason many thinks, that they were written for lute-harpsichord.


Another reason may be that the surviving autographs are written in keyboard score, as are the majority of the copies. The few surviving copies in tablature notation are adaptations by individual lutenists for their own use. The intended medium remains uncertain. Schulenberg suggests that because they are not fully idiomatic to one type of Baroque lute, they might have been played on various instruments, including German lutes of several different designs, the theorbo, and the lute-harpsichord.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> I just found this article, which looks interesting
> https://www.thisisclassicalguitar.com/bachs-lute-suites-clive-titmuss/


Yes, that is my understanding as well.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I just found this article, which looks interesting
> 
> https://www.thisisclassicalguitar.com/bachs-lute-suites-clive-titmuss/


Thanks for finding this. A rather entertaining article. I agree with its conclusion.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Bach owned lute-harpsichords, but he never specifically mentions the lute-harpsichord, and there is no evidence to suggest he composed anything for it.


Given the strong keyboard texture in BWV 996 and BWV 997, for example, and the fact that at least BWV 995 is unplayable on the lute, the evidence is quite clear that they were written for the lute-harpsichord.

Anyway. My point was that playing them on the piano does not yield a good result. They need to be played on the harpsichord, preferably on the lute register.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

LesCyclopes said:


> Given the...fact that at least BWV 995 is unplayable on the lute, the evidence is quite clear that they were written for the lute-harpsichord.


Reasonable folks can disagree, but one should not overlook the fact that, for example, BWV 995 has the following title in Bach's own hand: "Suite pour la luth par J.S. Bach". A frontispiece was added to this with the following: "Pièces pour la Luth à Monsieur Schouster par J.S. Bach".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Why is 995 unplayable? I mean what are the lutenists who recorded it doing? Are they changing the score? 

I've never heard it on lautenwerk, I like Leonhardt's performance very much.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Why is 995 unplayable? I mean what are the lutenists who recorded it doing? Are they changing the score?
> I've never heard it on lautenwerk, I like Leonhardt's performance very much.


They make transcriptions - from the article you posted:

"These transcriptions exhibit the arrangers' art in transposing basses, re-iteration of tied notes, simplifications of chords and the addition of idiomatic ornamentation."


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I'm sure we've been over this ground before, but I want to tell you that you're underestimating the capacity of rhythmic rubato to create the illusion of dynamic variation.


I like paintbrushes. But now that you mention it, I suppose I'm underestimating the capacity of my fingernail dipped in paint to create the illusion brush strokes...


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

For one thing, Bach wrote outside the range of the 13-course Baroque lute as we know it. In particular, he wrote bass lines that descend below the instrument's lowest open string. As a result some lutenists, such as Lutz Kirchhof, opt for the theorbo when performing BWV 995. Other lutenists such as Rolf Lislevand and possibly Joachim Held, use versions by Bach's lutenist contemporaries Christian Weyrauch and Adam Falkenhagen.

It's interesting to note that the music is written in two staves, the tenor and the bass clef and not in French lute tablature as was the practice of the leading German lutenists of the period. It's possible, as German musicologist Tilman Hoppstock points out when discussing the possible intended instrumentation of BWV 995, that the work may well have been written and arranged for both the lute and the keyboard, with the intention of having a lutenist adapt and intabulate the works for performance. At least there is no evidence for excluding the possibility that BWV 995 has been arranged for both lute and harpsichord, and the hypothesis is consistent both with the fact that there are passages unsuitable for the lute, and with the autograph title “pour la luth”.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Now I'm wondering whether "luth" in "Suite pour la luth par J.S. Bach" is a portmanteau word for any lute like instrument, like clavier means organ, harpsichord, clavichord etc, "violoncelle" can mean an instrument with four or five strings . . .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The specification may have been for a lautenwerck, or lute-harpsichord. This would appear to have an extended range. Bach owned two at the time of his death.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

KenOC said:


> The specification may have been for a lautenwerck, or lute-harpsichord. This would appear to have an extended range. Bach owned two at the time of his death.


Cool! . . . . . .


----------

