# Bach: Schiff vs Perahia



## RogerWaters

Both pianists have an excellent reputation with JS Bach. Schiff is potentially the more ‘studied’ of the two, and Perahia the more smoothed-over.

Who do you prefer, and why (and in which works)? :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

I'm not a fan of Perahia's Bach, although his Partitas set is fairly good. Perahia is an excellent example of pianism, but I find his connection with Bach rather slim.

Schiff's 1st Goldbergs Variations was a major disappointment; his 2nd on ECM is wonderfully exuberant. Both of his WTC sets are excellent. However, I can't say that he's a 1st tier Bach keyboardist.

Overall, my vote goes to Schiff by a significant margin.


----------



## KenOC

Schiff's ECM Bach is wonderful, much better than his earlier recordings. Perahia is very different, and very good, but I will generally choose Schiff/ECM to listen to.


----------



## flamencosketches

Well, I just got Mr. Perahia's Goldberg Variations a few days ago and have been enjoying it, but smoothed over is a good way to put it. I love Schiff's ECM Goldberg Variations, haven't heard his earlier one, and then I prefer his earlier WTC to the ECM one. Overall I'd say Schiff is the better Bach pianist strictly speaking.


----------



## DavidA

Perahia every time for me


----------



## numinisgos

Schiff for Das wohltemperierte Klavier and the Goldberg Variationen, both for ECM, 2011 & 2001 respectively. 

Perahia for the English Suites (Sony, 1998) and the Keyboard Concertos (2003) (w. Academy Of St. Martin In The Fields)

Overall I tend to find both of them rather uninspiring in Bach; yet, occasionally, Schiff shows flashes of ingenuity.


----------



## Mandryka

My feeling is that basically both Perahia and the earlier Schiff approache the c18 scores like people are taught in school to approach Scubert or Chopin. Bumps and jolts are minimised, all the voices sing together coherently.


----------



## premont

None of these two for me, I'm afraid.


----------



## tdc

Bulldog said:


> However, I can't say that he's a 1st tier Bach keyboardist.
> Overall, my vote goes to Schiff by a significant margin.


When discussing Bach keyboardists I separate pianists from harpsichordists, two different categories in my mind. I think Schiff is widely considered a 1st tier Bach pianist, though I think this is based mostly on his more recent work.

I think Gould and Schiff are arguably the two most popular Bach pianists at the moment, so maybe Gould vs. Schiff is a more interesting comparison. In either case I choose Schiff.


----------



## tdc

numinisgos said:


> Overall I tend to find both of them rather uninspiring in Bach; yet, occasionally, Schiff shows flashes of ingenuity.


Out of curiosity who do you find inspired in Bach?


----------



## flamencosketches

Perahia's Bach is nothing to scoff at, honestly. I think there are some beautiful interpretations there.


----------



## KenOC

flamencosketches said:


> Perahia's Bach is nothing to scoff at, honestly. I think there are some beautiful interpretations there.


Agree totally. When I'm in the mood for a kinder, gentler Bach, he fills the bill perfectly!


----------



## Bulldog

tdc said:


> Out of curiosity who do you find inspired in Bach?


On piano, there's Tureck, Gulda, Gould, Sheppard, and Koroliov. That's just a few that I find a few rungs higher than Schiff or Perahia.


----------



## tdc

Bulldog said:


> On piano, there's Tureck, Gulda, Gould, Sheppard, and Koroliov. That's just a few that I find a few rungs higher than Schiff or Perahia.


In what way do you consider these interpreters a few rungs higher? Is it because they performed more of Bach's repertoire in high quality? Can you point to any specific works or pieces where you think these pianists brought something out of the music that you feel Schiff and Perahia came up relatively short on? Can you add a few thoughts on what you think are the individual strengths of each of these interpreters that you prefer?


----------



## Bulldog

tdc said:


> In what way do you consider these interpreters a few rungs higher? Is it because they performed more of Bach's repertoire in high quality? Can you point to any specific works or pieces where you think these pianists brought something out of the music that you feel Schiff and Perahia came up relatively short on? Can you add a few thoughts on what you think are the individual strengths of each of these interpreters that you prefer?


I forgot to include Roger Woodward.

I favor those keyboardists because my opinion is that they do a better job of offering the intensity of Bach's music. They also are preferable concerning the flow of the music.

For reference, check out their WTC recordings.


----------



## Luchesi

A cautionary tale for us piano players;

Murray Perahia cut his thumb. Picked up an infection. Took anti-biotics. He said he felt bad (mostly psychological) and couldn't concertize while on the drug so he stopped taking it. The infection flared. It probably led to his bone abnormality. He was out for 5 years. He began studying Bach away from the keyboard. He talks about this experience, very positive. He gave recitals again, and then injured his weakened hand. He denied it was carpal tunnel, but now he's constantly aware of over-doing it.


----------



## KenOC

I'm not sure why anybody wants to rank Bach keyboardists. Seems to me that anybody who's proficient with a sewing machine should be able to handle Bach with aplomb. :devil:


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> A cautionary tale for us piano players;
> 
> Murray Perahia cut his thumb. Picked up an infection. Took anti-biotics. He said he felt bad (mostly psychological) and couldn't concertize while on the drug so he stopped taking it. The infection flared. It probably led to his bone abnormality. He was out for 5 years. He began studying Bach away from the keyboard. He talks about this experience, very positive. He gave recitals again, and then injured his weakened hand. He denied it was carpal tunnel, but now he's constantly aware of over-doing it.


When you say "he began studying Bach away from the keyboard ", what did he study? Are his performances really informed by some sort of studying?


----------



## numinisgos

tdc said:


> Out of curiosity who do you find inspired in Bach?


As far as his keyboards works are concerned, performed on the piano, I'd say: Tureck, Feinberg, Gould, Richter along with the selected few recordings we have from de Larrocha, Sokolov, Gavrilov & Koriolov. On the harpsichord: Landowska, Pinnock, Hantai, Staier, Rousset & Suzuki.


----------



## flamencosketches

numinisgos said:


> As far as his keyboards works are concerned, performed on the piano, I'd say: Tureck, Feinberg, Gould, Richter along with the selected few recordings we have from de Larrocha, Sokolov, Gavrilov & Koriolov. On the harpsichord: Landowska, Pinnock, Hantai, Staier, Rousset & Suzuki.


Any love for Leonhardt? He is a great Bach player, in my book. Some I need to explore further are Pinnock, Hantaï, and Suzuki.

Richter and Gould are two of my favorites too, and I'm just getting into the late Ms. Tureck, she was a phenomenon. But I also like Schiff and Perahia. I guess I'm not picky with Bach. There are a great many valid interpretations in my book. The music can stand up to a variety of personalities.


----------



## Bulldog

flamencosketches said:


> Any love for Leonhardt? He is a great Bach player, in my book.


I love Leonhardt's Bach, and he's also wonderful playing many other composers' music as well.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> When you say "he began studying Bach away from the keyboard ", what did he study? Are his performances really informed by some sort of studying?


He said that unlike the music of later composers Bach's keyboard music is "meditation".

Perahia - "I read all those great theorists, and I realised that music makes so much more sense when you see how the notes grow out of a deep structure. That's why I always analyse a piece before I play it. Look, this is an Impromptu of Schubert I'm working on," he says, leading me excitedly to the piano. Next to Schubert's score is a stripped-down version of the same piece in Perahia's neat hand, with all the surface luxuriance pared away. 
"See, this phrase is basically a huge single progression," he says, "and these notes have to be understood as a prolongation, and these are an interruption." 
It all sounds scarily intellectual. "Not at all," he says, "I'm really against intellectualism in music. You have to internalise all this stuff, soak yourself in it, so that it comes out naturally."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture...y-other-people-will-learn-to-love-it-too.html


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> He said that unlike the music of later composers Bach's keyboard music is "meditation".


I can't make sense of that at all.

_To meditate_ has an object, it's a transitive verb. So he thinks that Bach's music is _about_ something, unlike later composers. Is that it?


----------



## Dimace

Perahia and Bach? Not the perfect equation…

For the Father I'm going all the way home with Herr Joao Carlos Martin, die Frau Wanda Landowska and, of course, the Sir Andras.


----------



## Mandryka

Dimace said:


> Perahia and Bach? Not the perfect equation…


I'm sure you're right about that, but, paradoxically given what Luchesi says about him saying that Bach is meditation and later composers aren't, I think that people who want their Bach to sound like later composers, will find it more clearly in Perahia than in the others. In particular I think Perahia's sense of counterpoint is rooted in late c18 and even c19 ideas of several voices being led by one, and all singing together to make a beautiful coherent whole.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> I can't make sense of that at all.
> 
> _To meditate_ has an object, it's a transitive verb. So he thinks that Bach's music is _about_ something, unlike later composers. Is that it?


When I read the word meditation I thought he was bringing out the idea that the contrasts in later compositions for keyboard are less conducive to contemplating very uncommon thoughts, while playing or listening.

here's a lengthy interview;
He didn't have time to 'study' before his injury.

http://www.iplaythepiano.com/piano-mag/murray-perahia-interview.html


----------



## numinisgos

flamencosketches said:


> Any love for Leonhardt? He is a great Bach player, in my book. Some I need to explore further are Pinnock, Hantaï, and Suzuki.


Lots, the only reason I did not mention him is that his output is inconsistent, ranging from supreme excellence to tediousness. I have only praise for his early 1970's Well-Tempered Clavier and consider his recording of the violin/harpsichord sonatas with S. Kuijken of the highest order, one of _the_ benchmark recordings (cf. Blumenstock/Butt, Podger/Pinnock) but I was rather unmoved by both his 1975 Goldberg Variations and 1969 Art of Fugue.

If you are undertaking the Bach-harpsichord path then Gilbert (there is a box-set by Archiv of all the keyboard works) and Van Asperen (WTC, Toccatas) should also be considered.


----------



## howlingfantods

I'm cool on Perahia, actively dislike Schiff, but my impression of Schiff is mostly from his Decca days, which recordings I found pretty dull. 

In general, I prefer Sokolov, Richter, Gould, Yudina, and Feinberg for my Bach keyboard playing. Argerich has a good Bach CD, and Zhukov has a fantastic recording of the Passacaglia of his own transcription that's one of my favorites. Schepkin is good too, but he can be irritating at times, but quite good other times.


----------



## Enthusiast

I do quite like Perahia's Bach. He is unashamedly a pianist but I don't think it is true to say he is smooth. Schiff's later ECM recordings are quite special and not quite as pianistic as Perahia. There are many pianists I like in Bach and quite a few I don't like so much!


----------



## Mandryka

One place where you can hear the distinctive features of Perahia’s approach is in the gigue of the 6th partita. His piano style makes him unable to make anything more of the music than an exercise in speed, like the Schumann toccata. But we know from informed performances that this music can, indeed should, be very dark indeed. Schiff is very different from an expressive point of view even in the Philips recording, I think more so in the ECM. 

But I can imagine that some people will think that Perahia nails it, if they’re expectations are set by c19 music or if they’re rooted in the view that baroque music is essentially uplifting.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm not sure it is a good idea to assume what others are thinking or necessarily (but, OK, we all do this) to describe their taste as somehow wrong. I hear Perahia in the Gigue (taking that movement as a standalone) as being rather straight-laced and square (compared to almost anyone) but successful enough on his own terms and it does build up a good head of steam. I do prefer Sheppard's more imaginative account (and Schiff's and even Goode's). Levitt approaches the piece somewhat similarly to Perahia but the music seems sing more and to be more nuanced.


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I'm not sure it is a good idea to assume what others are thinking or necessarily (but, OK, we all do this) to describe their taste as somehow wrong. I hear Perahia in the Gigue (taking that movement as a standalone) as being rather straight-laced and square (compared to almost anyone) but successful enough on his own terms and it does build up a good head of steam. I do prefer Sheppard's more imaginative account (and Schiff's and even Goode's). Levitt approaches the piece somewhat similarly to Perahia but the music seems sing more and to be more nuanced.


Words like straight laced and square are evaluative, they're not purely descriptive. I was trying to avoid any evaluation, just to state what he does and make a proposition about why.

I think that gigues are a good place to focus when you're trying to make sense of an interpretation.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> Words like straight laced and square are evaluative, they're not purely descriptive.


Are they? I was trying to describe. As I have said I like Perahia's way with Bach while noting that it has qualities that may not be to everyone's tastes. I tried to give it a place among other pianists who I like in that gigue.


----------



## Mandryka

I think so, but it would be interesting to say what _straight laced_ and _square_ are without any metaphors, and without explicit evaluation, I bet it's not possible to do so in a satisfactory way.


----------



## lextune

numinisgos said:


> Schiff for Das wohltemperierte Klavier and the Goldberg Variationen, both for ECM, 2011 & 2001 respectively.
> 
> Perahia for the English Suites (Sony, 1998) and the Keyboard Concertos (2003) (w. Academy Of St. Martin In The Fields)
> 
> Overall I tend to find both of them rather uninspiring in Bach; yet, occasionally, Schiff shows flashes of ingenuity.


These are my sentiments exactly.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> I think so, but it would be interesting to say what _straight laced_ and _square_ are without any metaphors, and without explicit evaluation, I bet it's not possible to do so in a satisfactory way.


Not for me, maybe. I lack the musical knowledge and vocab. I suppose the best way to approach doing so would be comparatively.


----------



## howlingfantods

Mandryka said:


> I think that gigues are a good place to focus when you're trying to make sense of an interpretation.


Yes, I totally agree. Because Bach's gigues are highly contrapuntal music, and this is where I frequently find myself at odds with Perahia's Bach--it very much sounds like an approach that hears Bach as melody and accompaniment where I want to hear the music played as a swirl of equal voices around all other voices.


----------



## Luchesi

howlingfantods said:


> Yes, I totally agree. Because Bach's gigues are highly contrapuntal music, and this is where I frequently find myself at odds with Perahia's Bach--it very much sounds like an approach that hears Bach as melody and accompaniment where I want to hear the music played as a swirl of equal voices around all other voices.


Exactly. We should collect both types of renditions, lyrical and contrapuntal. That's why I think it's important that among the new recordings there's a high percentage of eccentric interpretations. We already have all the orthodox recordings for reference documents.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> Not for me, maybe. I lack the musical knowledge and vocab. I suppose the best way to approach doing so would be comparatively.


When I read your posts I can feel your appreciation for CM (and your intelligence). I wonder why you haven't looked into music as an academic subject. It's a question I ask many people. Is it boring for you? When did it become boring for you? At some point decades ago?


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> Exactly. We should collect both types of renditions, lyrical and contrapuntal. That's why I think it's important that among the new recordings there's a high percentage of eccentric interpretations. We already have all the orthodox recordings for reference documents.


In fact I probably think that all of Bach is lyrical - voices which sing like in a madrigal. I think it's really a question of the independence and complexity of the counterpoint.

In the solo keyboard music, I don't think there's very much which is of the form voice/accompaniment. Am I wrong,? I don't know WTC1 very well I should say. Even, f.e. the aria from the Goldberg Variations contains two independent voices, and its interest comes not solely from the melody, but also from the way these voices interact.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> When I read your posts I can feel your appreciation for CM (and your intelligence). I wonder why you haven't looked into music as an academic subject. It's a question I ask many people. Is it boring for you? When did it become boring for you? At some point decades ago?


That's nice! But I never really got on with playing any instrument or reading music. I can't claim either to have been that interested in reading about music. My brother was the musical one and went on to be a professional musician but I don't think he was ever _that _interested in listening to a wide range of music! As a child I can remember that he was always really only listening out for what his instrument was doing. I listen a lot and always have but my approach to listening is more concerned with impressions than analysis - my interest is what the music is doing for/to me rather than how it does that. I think I get what I want from music.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> In fact I probably think that all of Bach is lyrical - voices which sing like in a madrigal. I think it's really a question of the independence and complexity of the counterpoint.
> 
> In the solo keyboard music, I don't think there's very much which is of the form voice/accompaniment. Am I wrong,? I don't know WTC1 very well I should say. Even, f.e. the aria from the Goldberg Variations contains two independent voices, and its interest comes not solely from the melody, but also from the way these voices interact.


"In the solo keyboard music, I don't think there's very much which is of the form voice/accompaniment. Am I wrong,?"

That's an interesting question I've never heard before, but I would need to know more about what you're talking about.

As I categorize performers, Gould has a contrapuntal, often staccato-like conception as a goal. Perahia plays lyrically, even in JSB. By lyrical, I mean emotional, bordering on sentimentality. When I'm in the mood for that I go to him. When I'm in the mood for an impressive technical abstraction I go to Gould. For listening, I find there's only so much staccato/exactness and sentimentality that I can abide, so I generally gravitate to Richter or Arrau or Schiff. But again, if I'm preparing a piece to perform I want to hear how Perahia and Gould play it, because those are the extreme examples I know of. There's others, less famous ones. HIP performances are very helpful because they diverge from traditional conceptions in many details (due to newer research). In the end, you have to decide which mix of interesting nuances you're going to present.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> That's nice! But I never really got on with playing any instrument or reading music. I can't claim either to have been that interested in reading about music. My brother was the musical one and went on to be a professional musician but I don't think he was ever _that _interested in listening to a wide range of music! As a child I can remember that he was always really only listening out for what his instrument was doing. I listen a lot and always have but my approach to listening is more concerned with impressions than analysis - my interest is what the music is doing for/to me rather than how it does that. I think I get what I want from music.


Thanks. I've long been interested in the dynamics between siblings who play and don't play, because I think we can learn about the subtleties of how children acquire a lasting appreciation for serious music as opposed to just the social/sexual pop that most adolescents have at least a passing interest in.

The Beatles said, well, we just wanted to meet girls and make a little money. Later, with enough success, they got wrapped up in trying to impress a larger audience.

If you didn't have a brother like that maybe you would've been the musical one. That's kind of what happened to me in reverse. My brother was expected to go into music - but he didn't. He got interested in electronics.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Maybe. But I loved and devoured music from the moment I was introduced to it ... and I think that led to my feeling very unhappy with the horrible noises I got from instruments I tried (even after six months of trying). My brother never cared about that and slowly became good!


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Maybe. But I loved and devoured music from the moment I was introduced to it ... and I think that led to my feeling very unhappy with the horrible noises I got from instruments I tried (even after six months of trying). My brother never cared about that and slowly became good!


I could ask what you loved about it so early, but I realize that's a very difficult question to answer. There's all these crosscurrents in our young lives.

I find that most instruments (except piano) require a personality that either wants to show off - or doesn't mind showing off. The early sound mistakes you make are easily ignored if you're interested early on in impressing others. I actually know fellow musicians today who only play for others and aren't very introspective. When this becomes extreme they can be insufferable to perform with. "Look!, I can do it this way!" grrrrr !..

You sound very sensitive and so you're on the other end of the spectrum, I guess.

Keyboards don't make bad sounds and you can be off by yourself, in your own world. As you can imagine, personalities are a big part of musicmaking - and not only on the world-class level. <grin>

I have to give a music class this afternoon and these posts are very helpful for me to keep in the back of my mind. All the interactions with all different personality types.


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> "In the solo keyboard music, I don't think there's very much which is of the form voice/accompaniment. Am I wrong,?"
> 
> That's an interesting question I've never heard before, but I would need to know more about what you're talking about.


Well some music has one melody line which clearly has the leading role, the other voice or voices really are there to support it, give it a bit of weight, maybe to echo what it does a bit. An example would be BWV 1015/i. But I don't think very much of Bach's solo keyboard music is like this, but I'm not sure.



Luchesi said:


> By lyrical, I mean emotional, bordering on sentimentality.


This is an interesting thing that you've said.

First, when I said lyrical I meant music that is articulated with long phrases and which is played with a touch where the notes aren't completely encapsulated. Violin music is often like this, but keyboard too. I really wasn't distinguishing lyrical from cantabile, and that may have been misleading, I'm sorry.

Sentimentality is a negative term in English, it suggests manipulating the listener by an excessive display of emotion.

Some people think that Bach wanted his music to be full of expressive variety, like Frescobaldi's. I'd say one of the most interesting aspects of historically informed performance has been how it has revealed the potential for expression in Bach's music, especially the later music.

On the whole I think that the HIP performances are more expressive than the piano ones, though I should say that I haven't explored piano performances very much.Nevertheless my probably superficial impression is that generally speaking the pianists are entrenched in the view that Bach wrote music which is inclined to be emotionally limited, or conceptual and inexpressive. I'm sure there are exceptions to this.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> I could ask what you loved about it so early, but I realize that's a very difficult question to answer. There's all these crosscurrents in our young lives.
> 
> I find that most instruments (except piano) require a personality that either wants to show off - or doesn't mind showing off. The early sound mistakes you make are easily ignored if you're interested early on in impressing others. I actually know fellow musicians today who only play for others and aren't very introspective. When this becomes extreme they can be insufferable to perform with. "Look!, I can do it this way!" grrrrr !..
> 
> You sound very sensitive and so you're on the other end of the spectrum, I guess.
> 
> Keyboards don't make bad sounds and you can be off by yourself, in your own world. As you can imagine, personalities are a big part of musicmaking - and not only on the world-class level. <grin>
> 
> I have to give a music class this afternoon and these posts are very helpful for me to keep in the back of my mind. All the interactions with all different personality types.


What did I love about it at first? My first record (I can still feel the cover in my hands!) was of Bruno Walter's Mozart - symphony 35 and 40 - and I don't really know why but I loved them from the start (apart from the slow movements). Casting my mind back I think I felt something similar to what I still feel when I listen to a Mozart symphony. The music just got inside me. Fast. I went on to explore variety - a couple of Beethoven symphonies, Schubert's 9th, the Symphonie Fantastique, Nikolai Malko's Prokofiev record ... and it all filled my head.

I did try to learn the piano but the teacher was not very nice and the instrument seemed very difficult! In no way was I making music like I heard it in my head and anyway it was not a pleasure to go to those lessons.


----------



## numinisgos

Dear Luchese, don't you find Gould's 1981 rendition of the Goldberg variations lyrical? i.e. lyrical without sentimental overtones. 

And a borderline provocative question, is Mrs. Angela Hewitt the female analogue to Perahia? Could one understand their Bach in such a uniform way? Of course such a view is trying consciously to oversimplify, yet I'm only talking about the immediate process of categorizing that our understanding performs when coming across a multiplicity of different interpretations.


----------

