# Bach: Harpsichord or Piano



## shangoyal

What do you like for Bach? The harpsichord as the composer originally intended or the piano?


----------



## shangoyal

I personally prefer the harpsichord very strongly. I am not unable to listen to piano recordings, but the harpsichord is my clear favourite.


----------



## ptr

I usual prefer organ or clavichord in JSB's keyboard music and see no reason to choose between piano and harpsichord or any of the four, they bring different depths to the enrich music. 

I.e I prefer pluralism in any music!

/ptr


----------



## Winterreisender

The music is wonderfully versatile and sounds good on all of them, but I have a slight preference for harpsichord, especially for the faster pieces such as the Italian Concerto.


----------



## Itullian

Piano hands down.
But I like harpsichord too.


----------



## MrTortoise

Piano, harpsichord, meh, Bach even sounds good on









Seriously, I prefer to listen to the keyboard music on piano, though I should explore more of the harpsichord recordings of his works. I have a piano bias, I admit it!


----------



## Sonata

I enjoy the concertos with the original harpsichord, but I personally cannot listen to solo harpsichord music for any length of time. So his solo keyboard works, I'll take the piano.


----------



## MrTortoise

Sonata said:


> I enjoy the concertos with the original harpsichord, but I personally cannot listen to solo harpsichord music for any length of time. So his solo keyboard works, I'll take the piano.


I have the same reaction, for some reason harpsichord grates on my nerves.


----------



## PetrB

I really do not care other than I like and want both. 

A fine performance is a fine performance, and all the innate dynamics the various ranges inherent to the harpsichord (Which are very much a part of 'how to play Bach') can be transliterated in a performance on a piano -- without at all trying to achieve or mimic 'harpsichord.'

Any pianist playing earlier literature written for earlier period pianos runs into the same thing re: innate dynamic through the various ranges of the instrument and how the composers worked with that, and that too can be rendered on a modern piano.


----------



## Guest

I didn't vote because I like both. Harpsichord for the continuo and piano for the solo works. That isn't exclusive, though.


----------



## neoshredder

Harpsichord ftw. I lke the sharper sound.


----------



## Jeff W

I prefer Harpsichord, although I've heard Bach played quite well on Piano too!


----------



## Draugen

For the concertos, I definitely prefer harpsichord - to me this feels completely right.

For the solo keyboard, I honestly enjoy listening to either. If I had to take one group of Bach keyboard recordings though, it would be the organ works!


----------



## Manxfeeder

I don't really have a preference, but a good piano player can bring out things in the pieces I hadn't heard before.


----------



## Alydon

The strange thing is Bach's keyboard music sounds as though it was composed for the piano, the cross-over is amazing. The concertos still seem better on the harpsichord but works like the WTC seem to have a greater emotional depth on the piano. I always fine the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue only works best on the harpsichord, and never fails to astound.


----------



## lupinix

Ive never liked bach much on piano, except from the interpretation of brandenburg concerto 5 by angela hewitt


----------



## Mandryka

There are so many good piano and harpsichord records of the Goldbergs and WTC that it's hard to choose. In the AoF, the partitas and the suites I'm less certain, my feeling is that harpsichordists have so far made the most imaginative recordings (especially in AoF the English Suites) but I may be wrong. I definitely prefer recordings of the acompanied viol and violin sonatas with harpsichord. Same for the concertos. I've never heard Musical Offering with a piano.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I like both but for certain works such as the '48', AoF and Goldbergs I favour harpsichord. However, I'm thinking of getting Richter's '48' on RCA - any fans here?


----------



## hpowders

lupinix said:


> Ive never liked bach much on piano, except from the interpretation of brandenburg concerto 5 by angela hewitt


Me neither. It's harpsichord or nothing for me.


----------



## Alydon

elgars ghost said:


> I like both but for certain works such as the '48', AoF and Goldbergs I favour harpsichord. However, I'm thinking of getting Richter's '48' on RCA - any fans here?


I found Richter's recording has certain rawness about it and he certainly isn't short on commitment, but out of many, many versions (excepting Edwin Fisher's unique historic account) I have found the most satisfying to be Evgeni Koroliov - I got the 4 CD set on Tacet.


----------



## DavidA

elgars ghost said:


> I like both but for certain works such as the '48', AoF and Goldbergs I favour harpsichord.  However, I'm thinking of getting Richter's '48' on RCA - any fans here?


I have the Richter. Marvellous playing but a bit austere. He said he played Bach 'for hygienic reasons'!

Hewitt is good. Gould is - Gould! Tremendous playing!

For the solo works I only listen to the piano. I tend to agree with Beecham that it sounds like: 'Two skeletons copulating on a ton roof'


----------



## Mandryka

Alydon said:


> I found Richter's recording has certain rawness about it and he certainly isn't short on commitment, but out of many, many versions (excepting Edwin Fisher's unique historic account) I have found the most satisfying to be Evgeni Koroliov - I got the 4 CD set on Tacet.


My impression is that no one is successful in all the preludes and fugues, whether on piano or harpsichord. Koroliov's batting average is more impressive than most pianists though, as is Tureck's. Gulda and Woodward and maybe Vieru a notch below these two. Richter has proved to be more elusive for me. Up to now I haven't got much inspiration from his RCA WTC 2 at least. Even less so from the live recording.

One problem I have with many pianists is that they take things so fast that they lose the poetry. That's quite often a problem with Richter, and the complete set from Gould, and Edwin Fischer.

I wonder what people here think about Bernard Roberts's WTC, which I only acquired a couple of days ago.


----------



## shangoyal

I'm glad I started this poll, because I used to think everybody liked Bach on piano - but no, it's not that bad!

I think classical and romantic composers exploit the piano very well, because, well, they were composing on it. Bach's music sounds divine on the harpsichord, and merely listenable on piano, IMHO.


----------



## Guest

Harpsichord - ghastly. Piano or organ every time.
Oh, and harmonium!


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> I'm glad I started this poll, because I used to think everybody liked Bach on piano - but no, it's not that bad!
> 
> I think classical and romantic composers exploit the piano very well, because, well, they were composing on it. Bach's music sounds divine on the harpsichord, and merely listenable on piano, IMHO.


Yes. Bach's music sounds best on the instruments he created it for. Nothing quite like a great harpsichord performance of the WTC, Goldberg Variations, Keyboard Partitas, French and English Suites and Toccatas.

I've heard a lot of Bach on the piano and can't name any that I would prefer over Trevor Pinnock or Gustav Leonhardt.


----------



## Guest

Hell, Bach's music sounds great on just about any instrument. For the Goldbergs, I have recordings on harpsichord (several - Suzuki, Pinnock, Gilbert), piano (Gould, Perahia, Koroliov), organ (Guillou), and viol ensemble (Fretwork). I have also heard it on harp. While I don't enjoy all equally, all made a credible showing of themselves. One of my favorite recordings of the Art of Fugue is by a saxophone quartet. I enjoy the Hanssler Edition of the "48" played on a variety of keyboard instruments, including organ. I enjoy listening to these works on the original instrument for which they were composed, but I also like seeing just how versatile Bach's works can be. Yet another testimony to me of the man's genius.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> My impression is that no one is successful in all the preludes and fugues, whether on piano or harpsichord. Koroliov's batting average is more impressive than most pianists though, as is Tureck's. Gulda and Woodward and maybe Vieru a notch below these two. Richter has proved to be more elusive for me. Up to now I haven't got much inspiration from his RCA WTC 2 at least. Even less so from the live recording.
> 
> One problem I have with many pianists is that they take things so fast that they lose the poetry. That's quite often a problem with Richter, and the complete set from Gould, and Edwin Fischer.
> 
> I wonder what people here think about Bernard Roberts's WTC, which I only acquired a couple of days ago.


I've had the Roberts WTC for a few years. It's very enjoyable while I'm driving. When giving it my total concentration at home, I find the interpretations a little too comfortable and superficial. Given that I still own the set, I must like it some.


----------



## Ingélou

Sonata said:


> I enjoy the concertos with the original harpsichord, but I personally cannot listen to solo harpsichord music for any length of time. So his solo keyboard works, I'll take the piano.


I am going to vote for 'harpsichord' because I love the sound & it suits baroque music so well. But I have to admit, I can listen to piano for longer than I can listen to harpsichord. That twiddly sound is a little shallow and after a while, its charms start to pall. 
And as many have said, Bach's music sounds good on just about anything.


----------



## Bulldog

My preference is for the harpsichord, but I have hundreds of piano discs of Bach's solo keyboard music that I listen to regularly. At the top of the list are Gould, Koroliov, Woodward, Tureck and a few others. 

For me, the harpsichord just sounds like the perfect instrument for Bach's solo keyboard music. It also helps that I never tire of listening to the harpsichord. When I listen to Bach on piano for a few hours, I feel the need for a cleansing. "Sharp" is unfortunately not a quality I find on the piano.

Concerning chamber music such as the Sonatas for Keyboard and Violin, it's harpsichord all the way. The piano ruins it for me.


----------



## ShropshireMoose

Bulldog said:


> I've had the Roberts WTC for a few years. It's very enjoyable while I'm driving. When giving it my total concentration at home, I find the interpretations a little too comfortable and superficial. Given that I still own the set, I must like it some.


I find Bernard Roberts' recording of the Partitas outstanding, I've not heard his WTC, with reference to my own preference (ah me, almost poetry!) I like both about equally. As a pianist myself I wouldn't want to deprive me of playing Bach, and knowing JSB's love of shifting things round onto all sorts of instruments, I doubt he'd have had a problem with anyone playing it on the piano, nor with any of the marvellous transcriptions that have been made over the years by the likes of Busoni/Tausig/Grainger/Petri etc. If you like a piece then in the hands of a master musician, it can double your pleasure when listened to on different instruments. Eg. the Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue, which I have three very fine recordings of, two on harpsichord, Wanda Landowska and George Malcolm respectively, and one on piano by Wilhelm Kempff, I wouldn't want to be without any of them. The George Malcolm is on a wonderful Decca CD called "The World of the Harpsichord", a treasury of superb performances by the marvellous Mr. Malcolm- including his remarkable arrangement of "Flight of the Bumblebee", which somehow defies belief. So there ye go, love them both. More than one road to Rome, eh what???? :tiphat:


----------



## spradlig

I voted for piano, but I cannot imagine a piano in the 5th Brandenburg Concerto solo, and I think a piano would sound too loud in those Brandenburg Concertos that have harpsichord parts (all except #3?)


----------



## MozartEarlySymphonies

For me, I don't really really care if Bach is played on a piano or harpsichord. But for some pieces, like the Goldberg Concertos, French Suites, Fugues, etc, I perfer to listen to them played on a piano but for the Italian Concerto, Keyboard Concertos and some lesser known pieces, I prefer harpsichord. 

For any other Baroque composer (Handel, Scarlatti), I will almost always pick a harpsichord recording over a piano recording.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I love HIP recordings, but honestly I have far more great recordings of Bach's music on piano: Gould, Schiff, Perahia, Hewitt, Edwin Fischer, Rosalyn Tureck, Sviatoslav Richter, etc... As DrMike suggested, Bach sounds great on a vast array of instruments. I have the Goldberg Variations and the Art of Fugue performed on harp, string quartet, recorder ensemble, chamber orchestra, organ, clavichord, etc... Personally I have no use for purists and dogma when it comes to music.


----------



## Notung

I think the harpsichord has a more articulate, forward sound than the piano. This works better with contrapuntal works, allowing the performer to concentrate on the structural line. The piano introduces problems of dynamics and coloring that can complicate things. No to mention how the single keyboard can make performance much more difficult for certain pieces that were written with a double-keyboard harpsichord in mind. I always prefer the harpsichord with ANY baroque composer.

I'm a little biased, though. I've always loved the rich and virtuosic nature of the harpsichord's technique. I know that a piano can also produce oodles of virtuosity. but the harpsichord has a special virtuosic sound when played right. While the piano has a sound that is like a beam of light being adjusted by a shade, the harpsichord is like a pure beam without adjustment; this sharp and penetrating feel that gives the baroque it's trademark sound.

In short, it just sounds awesome.


----------



## neoshredder

Notung said:


> I think the harpsichord has a more articulate, forward sound than the piano. This works better with contrapuntal works, allowing the performer to concentrate on the structural line. The piano introduces problems of dynamics and coloring that can complicate things. No to mention how the single keyboard can make performance much more difficult for certain pieces that were written with a double-keyboard harpsichord in mind. I always prefer the harpsichord with ANY baroque composer.
> 
> I'm a little biased, though. I've always loved the rich and virtuosic nature of the harpsichord's technique. I know that a piano can also produce oodles of virtuosity. but the harpsichord has a special virtuosic sound when played right. While the piano has a sound that is like a beam of light being adjusted by a shade, the harpsichord is like a pure beam without adjustment; this sharp and penetrating feel that gives the baroque it's trademark sound.
> 
> In short, it just sounds awesome.


Well said. Baroque style sounds better with harpsichord. But I'll take piano with my Romanticism. Classical Era a mixed bag.


----------



## Mandryka

ShropshireMoose said:


> I find Bernard Roberts' recording of the Partitas outstanding, I've not heard his WTC, with reference to my own preference (ah me, almost poetry!) I like both about equally. As a pianist myself I wouldn't want to deprive me of playing Bach, and knowing JSB's love of shifting things round onto all sorts of instruments, I doubt he'd have had a problem with anyone playing it on the piano, nor with any of the marvellous transcriptions that have been made over the years by the likes of Busoni/Tausig/Grainger/Petri etc. If you like a piece then in the hands of a master musician, it can double your pleasure when listened to on different instruments. Eg. the Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue, which I have three very fine recordings of, two on harpsichord, Wanda Landowska and George Malcolm respectively, and one on piano by Wilhelm Kempff, I wouldn't want to be without any of them. The George Malcolm is on a wonderful Decca CD called "The World of the Harpsichord", a treasury of superb performances by the marvellous Mr. Malcolm- including his remarkable arrangement of "Flight of the Bumblebee", which somehow defies belief. So there ye go, love them both. More than one road to Rome, eh what???? :tiphat:


If you don't know it you should listen to Busoni's transcription of the Goldberg Variations, I have a recording by Sarah Davis Büchner, I'm sure you'd enjoy it. Busoni also made some WTC arrangements which I'd like to explore.

I discovered George Malcolm myself a few years go when I was exploring Rameau and Couperin. I love what he does with French Music, and I also like his Scarlatti very much. I've never heard him play Bach but I'll check it out for sure. Who was he? Was he interested in Historical Performance? (the performances sound HIP influenced to me.)

It's interesting you mentioning the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue just because that seems a really idiomatic harpsichord piece to me, with all those fast bright arpeggios. I know pianists have played it often, but I would say it really transforms the music to put it on a modern piano like the one Kempff uses, maybe essentially transforms it.

Maybe Bach had a Silbermann piano in mind for some music of course - Musical Offering for example. Maybe even parts of WTC 2.

Just lately, listening to WTC 2, I've started to really loath what Wanda Landowska does with the music. Sorry.


----------



## Tristan

For the concerti, harpsichord no doubt. They sound like they were written for the harpsichord and they work much better with it, in my opinion.

For the solo music, I could go either way. Some of it does seem to sound a little better with the piano; I'm not a "purist", I don't need period instruments all the time, and sometimes I do prefer to hear his solo keyboard music on a piano rather than a harpsichord.


----------



## Whistler Fred

I like the sound of the harpsichord, and particularly like it in Bach's keyboard music. But Bach is one of the most adaptable composers around, and I've found myself enjoying Bach played on piano by artists like Perahia (in the Goldberg Variations) or Woodward (in the WTC). I ordinarily dislike the dry staccato I've sometimes heard from certain pianists who seem to be treating the piano as a harpsichord with more keys. I hear this in some of Friedrich Gulda Bach and it just doesn't grab me. But Gould's recordings, particularly, of course, his Goldbergs, almost convinces me otherwise.


----------



## shangoyal

Been listening to the English and French suites and it is impossible, yes, IMPOSSIBLE for me to listen to this music on piano. The harpsichord makes total sense - maybe even the clavicen.


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> Been listening to the English and French suites and it is impossible, yes, IMPOSSIBLE for me to listen to this music on piano. The harpsichord makes total sense - maybe even the clavicen.


Totally agree. Bach's keyboard music sounds painful to me on the piano.
For the French and English Suites and Keyboard Partitas and even Goldberg Variations and WTC, it's the harpsichord or nothing!


----------



## GodNickSatan

Why not the clavichord? It was supposedly Bach's favourite keyboard instrument.


----------



## Mandryka

GodNickSatan said:


> Why not the clavichord? It was supposedly Bach's favourite keyboard instrument.


Is there a good recording of The French Suites on a clavichord?


----------



## Ukko

shangoyal said:


> What do you like for Bach? The harpsichord as the composer originally intended or the piano?


Different but equal - mostly. Clavichord is good, properly recorded. Organ not so much, but sometimes. My body is pretty inflexible, but my mind is... my mind... what?


----------



## violadude

I ask Lord Bach on high to forgive me of my sins, but I enjoy his music more on piano. I think the counterpoint comes through more clearly if on the piano. The noisy twinkling overtones on the harpsichord make dense counterpoint harder to make out for me.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> I ask Lord Bach on high to forgive me of my sins, but I enjoy his music more on piano. I think the counterpoint comes through more clearly if on the piano. The noisy twinkling overtones on the harpsichord make dense counterpoint harder to make out for me.


That is dependent on the particular harpsichord, and to a lesser degree on the engineering.


----------



## violadude

Ukko said:


> That is dependent on the particular harpsichord, and to a lesser degree on the engineering.


That's good to know. I'll keep that in mind.


----------



## GodNickSatan

Mandryka said:


> Is there a good recording of The French Suites on a clavichord?


Honestly I'm not sure. Clavichord recordings are a lot less common, but I think they offer a nice sound that's somewhere between a harpsichord and a fortepiano.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> That's good to know. I'll keep that in mind.


I'm not sure it will be any help before the fact (unless you can examine the booklet before buying the CD) - 17th C. Flemish harpsichords tend toward less uncontrolled resonance than English or German ones. The French harpsichordist Blandine ___ (can't remember her surname) plays one of those. There are also performance tendencies to consider; Fernando Valenti, for instance, paid a lot of attention to dynamics, which on a harpsichord pretty much means getting multiple strings vibrating for fortes. It's fairly hazardous to generalize about harpsichord sound without 'tasting your toe', but at least I clean my feet regularly.


----------



## hpowders

GodNickSatan said:


> Why not the clavichord? It was supposedly Bach's favourite keyboard instrument.


The clavichord can only project into a very small room. Very delicate.

I have a performance of Bach WTC on clavichord. I can barely hear it.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> The clavichord can only project into a very small room. Very delicate.
> 
> I have a performance of Bach WTC on clavichord. I can barely hear it.


I have that same WTC recording (I am assuming, unless there are multiple ones, and then I don't know if I have the same one). I enjoy it a lot, but you are right - it is not much good for anything other than very intimate recitals in small rooms. But recording technology makes up for that.


----------



## Guest

shangoyal said:


> Been listening to the English and French suites and it is impossible, yes, IMPOSSIBLE for me to listen to this music on piano. The harpsichord makes total sense - maybe even the clavicen.


Luckily my ears are a little more versatile - it still makes perfect sense to me on the piano. Quite honestly, were Bach here today, I'm sure he would feel quite comfortable plunking down at any old keyboard instrument and performing his works.


----------



## hpowders

DrMike said:


> I have that same WTC recording (I am assuming, unless there are multiple ones, and then I don't know if I have the same one). I enjoy it a lot, but you are right - it is not much good for anything other than very intimate recitals in small rooms. But recording technology makes up for that.


Ralph Kirkpatrick.


----------



## Guest

shangoyal said:


> Been listening to the English and French suites and it is impossible, yes, IMPOSSIBLE for me to listen to this music on piano. The harpsichord makes total sense - maybe even the clavicen.


Clavicen, I believe, is also just another word for harpsichord - someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But if you meant clavichord, then there is a problem there, as the harpsichord and clavichord are different instruments with different sounds. With a harpsichord, the strings are plucked, whereas with the clavichord, the strings are hit. You get different sounds and different dynamics from each, and they would be played differently. So if it is acceptable to play Bach's works on either of those, then I would think it would also be fine to also include foretepianos and pianos.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

definitely piano for me.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Ralph Kirkpatrick.


That is the one. I like it very much.


----------



## hpowders

DrMike said:


> That is the one. I like it very much.


Yeah, me too, when I can hear it!!!


----------



## shangoyal

DrMike said:


> Clavicen, I believe, is also just another word for harpsichord - someone correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> But if you meant clavichord, then there is a problem there, as the harpsichord and clavichord are different instruments with different sounds. With a harpsichord, the strings are plucked, whereas with the clavichord, the strings are hit. You get different sounds and different dynamics from each, and they would be played differently. So if it is acceptable to play Bach's works on either of those, then I would think it would also be fine to also include foretepianos and pianos.


Yes, I meant a clavichord. I have been confused by these names before, thanks for making it clear. But I would still disagree with you about the piano. The piano is too warm and soft for Bach. The clavichord is inferior to the harpsichord but still mostly very good.


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. I have never heard any performance of Bach on piano that hasn't been bettered by a harpsichord.


----------



## Ravndal

Harpsichord sounds like death.

Though i prefer it in ensembles. But as solo instrument? hell no.


----------



## GodNickSatan

If it has been well recorded then it shouldn't be a problem.

Sorry, forgot to use the quote. I meant in reply to clavichord recordings, the sound shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## hpowders

Piano is an anachronism in Bach.

You think he was writing for a Steinway? Ridiculous!! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> You think he was writing for a Steinway? Ridiculous!! :lol:


Neither was Beethoven, but it seems to work well enough.


----------



## shangoyal

KenOC said:


> Neither was Beethoven, but it seems to work well enough.


But that does not guarantee it will work for Bach.


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> But that does not guarantee it will work for Bach.


Absolutely! Many Bach runs sound smudged on the piano and sharp as heck on the harpsichord.

Let's give Bach some credit that he really did know the instrument that he was writing for! :lol:

As Shakespeare might say, if he could hear Bach:

If this be harpsichord, give me excess of it!!!:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

shangoyal said:


> But that does not guarantee it will work for Bach.


There seems to be a consensus that Bach wrote his WTC to be played on the clavichord. Is it a betrayal to play it on a harpsichord?

BTW Bach became a sales agent for Silbermann's fortepianos about 1742; some of his bills of sale survive.


----------



## hpowders

I have Bach on harpsichord; Beethoven and Mozart on fortepiano, and I am happy as a clam.
Having just inherited a huge sum of money has nothing to do with it!


----------



## Blancrocher

shangoyal said:


> But that does not guarantee it will work for Bach.


One thing I can tell you: Beethoven sounds _terrible_ on a harpsichord :lol: Bach, in my experience, sounds pretty good on any instrument.











Can hardly go wrong with either a piano or harpsichord, in my view--Bach makes it easy.

*p.s.* Easy to see what Chopin saw in Bach listening to this prelude--love it.


----------



## shangoyal

KenOC said:


> There seems to be a consensus that Bach wrote his WTC to be played on the clavichord. Is it a betrayal to play it on a harpsichord?
> 
> BTW Bach became a sales agent for Silbermann's fortepianos about 1742; some of his bills of sale survive.


Nothing is a betrayal unless it sounds bad. I don't like Bach on piano, but I don't think it's bad - and lots of people seem to like it, so I have no issues!

By the way, I don't think Bach wrote his Art of Fugue to be played by string quartet either.


----------



## hpowders

I think Bach on the piano is bad.
I think Bach on the clavichord is bad if one cannot even hear the music.
I think Bach on the Goldilocks und Sohn harpsichord is just right!


----------



## KenOC

shangoyal said:


> By the way, I don't think Bach wrote his Art of Fugue to be played by string quartet either.


Well, I don't think that works very well. My favorite AoF is by the Canadian Brass!

But that's kind of cheating, since the AoF is written in open score. Maybe Bach had a brass ensemble in mind!


----------



## shangoyal

Blancrocher said:


> One thing I can tell you: Beethoven sounds _terrible_ on a harpsichord :lol: Bach, in my experience, sounds pretty good on any instrument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can hardly go wrong with either a piano or harpsichord, in my view--Bach makes it easy.
> 
> *p.s.* Easy to see what Chopin saw in Bach listening to this prelude--love it.


Yes, I agree about Beethoven and harpsichord. Wholeheartedly!


----------



## shangoyal

KenOC said:


> Well, I don't think that works very well. My favorite AoF is by the Canadian Brass!


Have to hear that then.


----------



## KenOC

shangoyal said:


> Have to hear that then.


Here:


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> There seems to be a consensus that Bach wrote his WTC to be played on the clavichord.


Where do you get this from?


----------



## Chordalrock

I might prefer the harpsichord if the musicians didn't play it as if the listener weren't at all familiar with the music. As it is, their phrasing is pretty laughable basically without exception, with tons of "rubato" and such used for revealing the structure of the music without concern for how it actually ends up sounding to my poor ears.

With the piano you have a similar problem with every pianist emphasising the subject in fugues, again as if the listener were unfamiliar with the music and needed the structure to be spelled out for them. The modern concert piano is also not as polyphonically clear as the harpsichord, so that's a minus.

Ideally my preferred instrument would be the concert pianos from Liszt's time: both great expressiveness and polyphonic clarity. But I'd also require a pianist who plays well and doesn't follow cultural expectations.



Mandryka said:


> Where do you get this from?


Wasn't the harpsichord considered a concert instrument back then? While hobbyists playing for their own pleasure used the clavichord, which was a more silent instrument and capable of some dynamic variation like the piano?


----------



## aleazk

Piano for solo keyboard pieces. Harpsichord for ensamble pieces.


----------



## GodNickSatan

This is the type of piano Bach would have played on late in his life. Sounds nice!


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> Where do you get this from?


In general:
----------------------------------------------------
Bach's first biographer, Johann Nikolaus Forkel, on the strength of interviews with the composer's sons, reported that the clavichord was Bach's favorite keyboard instrument. The harpsichord, Forkel wrote, "had not enough soul" for Bach, while the clavichord let him "express his most refined thoughts" with its "variety in the gradation of tone."
----------------------------------------------------

There is another passage on his playing the WTC in rather extended swaths, also on the clavichord, that I don't have time to dig up right now.


----------



## Blancrocher

aleazk said:


> Piano for solo keyboard pieces. Harpsichord for ensamble pieces.


I love the recording of the violin sonatas with Gould and Laredo, in part because of the idiosyncratic sound of Gould's piano. Just a personal preference, of course, but I'd encourage anyone who hasn't heard it to give it a try.


----------



## Guest

I prefer the power and sustain of the piano, but I also enjoy the harpsichord for its historical accuracy.


----------



## hpowders

The clavichord was an instrument for the home and small recital rooms. Very intimate sound.


----------



## KenOC

Blancrocher said:


> I love the recording of the violin sonatas with Gould and Laredo, in part because of the idiosyncratic sound of Gould's piano. Just a personal preference, of course, but I'd encourage anyone who hasn't heard it to give it a try.


I love this recording. To me, the cello (viola da gamba) sonatas included are even more enjoyable.


----------



## Bas

Bach's music's, and more specific Bach's works for solo keyboard's most important quality is in the structure, counterpoint and rhythm. If played well it does not lose those intrinsic qualities on either instrument. The harpsichord emphasises phrasing more clearly naturally, but that is an effect that can be done on the piano too. 
I like both (and I love Bach.)


----------



## Ukko

Bas said:


> Bach's music's, and more specific Bach's works for solo keyboard's most important quality is in the structure, counterpoint and rhythm. If played well it does not lose those intrinsic qualities on either instrument. The harpsichord emphasises phrasing more clearly naturally, but that is an effect that can be done on the piano too.
> I like both (and I love Bach.)


You express what I choose to label as the Enlightened Conservative attitude toward Bach's keyboard works. The 'Enlightened' part is what allows appreciation for piano renditions, and 'tasteful' attention to voices. It does not accept 'Romanticization".

There are two other classifications, the major characteristics of which must be obvious. And then there is Gould.


----------



## Mandryka

Ukko said:


> You express what I choose to label as the Enlightened Conservative attitude toward Bach's keyboard works. The 'Enlightened' part is what allows appreciation for piano renditions, and 'tasteful' attention to voices. It does not accept 'Romanticization".
> 
> There are two other classifications, the major characteristics of which must be obvious. And then there is Gould.


In what ways isn't Gould just another romantic pianist?


----------



## TudorMihai

Harpsichord because it is important for us to hear the music the way it was conceived by the composer.


----------



## Ukko

Mandryka said:


> In what ways isn't Gould just another romantic pianist?


Gould is not "just another" anything.


----------



## kv466

Well said, Bobby!


----------



## moody

Ukko said:


> Gould is not "just another" anything.


Don't get me started !


----------



## Mandryka

Ukko said:


> Gould is not "just another" anything.


In which ways wasn't he a romantic pianist?


----------



## Ukko

The 'other' Gould (not Morton) throws sparks. A flinty character, eh? To get back to _Mandryka_'s wonderment, GG's Bach cannot legitimately labeled 'Romantic", even by a non-enlightened conservative. 'Different' will work, being highly non-specific. You might use Rangell's or Weissenberg's Bach as an example of Romantic Bach of the non-Russian persuasion. Richter and Yudina for the Russian School.

Is there a recording of the WTC on piano, arranged in the circle of 5ths? I wonder what category that would be placed in.


----------



## Ukko

Mandryka said:


> In which ways wasn't he a romantic pianist?


Oops, you slipped that in there. He wasn't a Romantic performer of Bach (or Sweelinck) because he doesn't Romanticize the music - he Gouldizes it. Now I suppose you want a definition of Romanticize that doesn't include Gould's Bach. You ain't getting it from me. Class ends at 1350, and I need to collect the papers.


----------



## Blancrocher

Ukko said:


> Is there a recording of the WTC on piano, arranged in the circle of 5ths? I wonder what category that would be placed in.


I suspect Shostakovich played it that way--shame nobody had any recording equipment handy.


----------



## WienerKonzerthaus

The extraordinary quality of Bach becomes clear when it turns out that whether on Piano, Harpsichord, or Wendy Carlos' Synthesizer, Marimba, or tuned ceiling fans... it always has an air of the divine about it. There's always something that quickens the spirit... cleans the musical blood. After a day of music and nothing but music, Bach is the only thing I _always_ enjoy at night or in the evening. Only the flute can make Bach tedious to my Bach-loving ears.

This post, quite unrelated to what it is about (which happens to be about a Flute recording of the Sonatas that actually ISN'T boring, has some of my favorite piano-played Bach works on it... themselves transcriptions.


Bach is Next to Godliness, the Flute Not



That said... and even though I grew up with the harpsichord through a relative who played and recorded Scarlatti and whatnot... I'd have to go with the Piano... on average. There just are fewer harpsichord recordings of many of the works, where I am as immediately involved. Where that is the case, I end up preferring the harpsichord again... but the odds aren't in its favor. They are, though, when Christophe Rousset is performing, or Pierre Hantai. Or, come to think about it, Mme. Schornsheim.


----------



## fortepiano

Harpsichord or piano? Neither. Fortepiano.


----------



## Ravndal

GG's style is not romantic. It's more exaggurated baroque. Though it doesn't matter one bit. It sounds very good, and that is whats important.


----------



## Mandryka

Ravndal said:


> GG's style is not romantic. It's more exaggurated baroque.


Can you spell out the difference for me -- between exaggerated baroque and romantic? I remember listening to the first and last Goldbergs recordings recently and noticing the rubato, how marked it is, in both recordings.

I don't know how casual he was about that sort of thing. Did Gould ever say anything about Landowska? Or (at the other extreme) Walcha? Or (at a third extreme), Leonhardt?


----------



## Ravndal

Sure. The things he does is more baroque than romantic.

Back then it was normal to improvise and drag things out. Frescobaldi said that when your starting a quick passage, you have to start slowly, like a ball falling downwards. Playing organically and romantic rubato is quite different. You never hear gould play bach like rubinstein plays chopin.

If you played bach like chopin, the voicings/polyphony would not work. And GG is a master of playing the different voices clear.

If you want to listen to someone who studied Bach her whole life, listen to Rosalyn Tureck. She could also be quite eccentric. 




http://www.amazon.co.uk/Frescobaldi...&qid=1394984600&sr=1-1&keywords=9780822307112


----------



## Blancrocher

Ravndal said:


> Sure. The things he does is more baroque than romantic.
> 
> Back then it was normal to improvise and drag things out. Frescobaldi said that when your starting a quick passage, you have to start slowly, like a ball falling downwards. Playing organically and romantic rubato is quite different. You never hear gould play bach like rubinstein plays chopin.
> 
> If you played bach like chopin, the voicings/polyphony would not work. And GG is a master of playing the different voices clear.
> 
> If you want to listen to someone who studied Bach her whole life, listen to Rosalyn Tureck. She could also be quite eccentric.


Great summary. I'd just add that with loss there can sometimes be gain. Especially in the 2nd book of the WTC, I sometimes almost get the feeling Bach was headed towards a more Romantic aesthetic: the silky legato of a Fischer or Richter can sound absolutely definitive, especially when heard in contrast with some of the tougher writing within the same piece. The juxtaposition of harsh and smooth themes is just another kind of contrast that I think would appeal to a baroque composer like Bach.


----------



## Mandryka

Blancrocher said:


> Great summary. I'd just add that with loss there can sometimes be gain. Especially in the 2nd book of the WTC, I sometimes almost get the feeling Bach was headed towards a more Romantic aesthetic: the silky legato of a Fischer or Richter can sound absolutely definitive, especially when heard in contrast with some of the tougher writing within the same piece. The juxtaposition of harsh and smooth themes is just another kind of contrast that I think would appeal to a baroque composer like Bach.


I didn't get on as well with Fischer's WTC 2 as with other piano versions (like Tureck's on DG.) Part of the reason is that he sometimes uses extreme dynamic ranges, tear drop pianissimos and loud fortes, and I find that a bit crude personally. One thing I did like was his prelude of BWV 890, for the joy at the end.

I got on even less well with Richter's , who seemed all too often too fast, so all the poetry is missed - that's a failing of many pianists.

But what you say is interesting and it makes me sure that I've missed something important - after all these were serious musicians. Can you give some examples please?


----------



## Mandryka

Ravndal said:


> Sure. The things he does is more baroque than romantic.
> 
> Back then it was normal to improvise and drag things out. Frescobaldi said that when your starting a quick passage, you have to start slowly, like a ball falling downwards. Playing organically and romantic rubato is quite different. You never hear gould play bach like rubinstein plays chopin.
> 
> If you played bach like chopin, the voicings/polyphony would not work. And GG is a master of playing the different voices clear.
> 
> If you want to listen to someone who studied Bach her whole life, listen to Rosalyn Tureck. She could also be quite eccentric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Frescobaldi...&qid=1394984600&sr=1-1&keywords=9780822307112


I'd love to hear some examples of Gould following Frecobaldi's advice. He's sometimes so fast that for me it's glib (example - fugue (gigue) in the 5th partita, allemande in the 4th French Suite.)

I don't understand your point about rubato at all, again I need some examples. All my favourite baroque keyboard players use rubato. Gould used rubato.

I like some of what Tureck does very much, especially in the earlier recordings. With one or two exceptions, I like her later style in Bach much much less.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mandryka said:


> Can you give some examples please?


Probably not, since it sounds like you've listened to these masters with care--probably more than me :lol: I find it hard to generalize about Richter's performance of the WTC, in all honesty--especially his book 1, which has a lot of variation in tempo.  A lot of the major-key p&f's sound rather tossed off to me. Poetry abounds, though, as here in the show-stopper c sharp minor fugue:






Listen to how slowly he starts off the fugue, and it sounds to me like he keeps everything in order even as the climax arrives (around 7 mins in) and he's balancing all the fugue subjects after the deep bass comes in. Other great interpreters of the piece--Gulda, for example--are a lot quicker.

Our opinion about his book 2 is probably just different, but again I find he's particularly good in the minor-key pieces.

As far as Fischer is concerned, I'll simply admit I have vulgar tastes :lol: I like the drama of it all.

*p.s.* Thanks for the mention of Fischer's BWV 890 -- I'm going to listen to it now.


----------



## Mandryka

Blancrocher said:


> Probably not, since it sounds like you've listened to these masters with care--probably more than me :lol: I find it hard to generalize about Richter's performance of the WTC, in all honesty--especially his book 1, which has a lot of variation in tempo. A lot of the major-key p&f's sound rather tossed off to me. Poetry abounds, though, as here in the show-stopper c sharp minor fugue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to how slowly he starts off the fugue, and it sounds to me like he keeps everything in order even as the climax arrives (around 7 mins in) and he's balancing all the fugue subjects after the deep bass comes in. Other great interpreters of the piece--Gulda, for example--are a lot quicker.
> 
> Our opinion about his book 2 is probably just different, but again I find he's particularly good in the minor-key pieces.
> 
> As far as Fischer is concerned, I'll simply admit I have vulgar tastes :lol: I like the drama of it all.
> 
> *p.s.* Thanks for the mention of Fischer's BWV 890 -- I'm going to listen to it now.


It's the very end, the last 15 seconds or so, of EF's BWV 890 that impressed me - it's like some sort of mystical joy. He was an extremely dynamic pianist.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mandryka said:


> It's the very end, the last 15 seconds or so, of EF's BWV 890 that impressed me - it's like some sort of mystical joy. He was an extremely dynamic pianist.


I just heard it--it's amazing. I'll be listening to it again with comparisons soon. Thanks again.


----------



## Mandryka

Blancrocher said:


> I just heard it--it's amazing. I'll be listening to it again with comparisons soon. Thanks again.


Koroliov is good in the fugue. I liked Jaroslav Tüma in the prelude also. Edwin Fischer's agreeable in the fugue - but I was inspired most by Koroliov.


----------



## tdc

I'll take Bach on piano or harpsichord, but two of the big guns I'm not crazy about are Gould and Richter. Schiff is who I've been most impressed with lately. I like Pieter-Jan Belder on harpsichord well enough, Hewitt is ok. I rarely hear him mentioned but I quite like Ashkenazy's recording of the WTC.

I need to listen to more Tureck (among others), I've heard some of her later Bach and was more or less neutral on it.


----------



## Antiquarian

Harpsichord if I am in a traditionalist mood, otherwise piano. Can't stand Bach by synthesizer.


----------



## Trev Edwards

Harpsichord if ensemble, piano for solo etc. Usually that is.

One of my teachers took me to Chester one evening to a harpsichord recital. This would be about 1978. I had no clue at all what was being played but I loved it.

My first ever experience of listening to quality record was the 7 LP set of Trevor Pinnock and the English Concert playing the Bach Harpsichord concertos on Archiv. I remember vividly picking it out of the rack in 1985. I think I had to pay 25p to borrow it from Preston library's recorded sound collection. Unemployed and nothing better to do I listened to it all in a couple of days. Those recordings stayed with me via the magic of cassette for years, so the Harpsichord is definitely my favourite for the concertos .

That being said I do have the Murray Peraiah piano versions (picked up a box set at an absolute bargain price because the cardboard sleeve was tatty) and they are really nice too. I even have some of the concertos transcribed for Organ.

I think Bach would have loved the modern piano and he wouldn't have minded if the harpsichord had faded out. I just love that authentic sound.


----------



## helpmeplslol

Piano = delicious
Harpsichord = quaint for a while, then annoying


----------



## Varick

I like Bach on the Theremin personally.

I enjoy both, but limited quantities on Harpsichord. I agree with some others that after a while, the harpsichord sound starts grating on my nerves. Piano is my muse.

And also to agree with many others, there are few things on which Bach doesn't sound great. IMO he is the greatest composer that ever lived.

V


----------



## Ukko

I just (yesterday) finished transferring Anthony Newman's Book 2, wherein he plays harpsichord, clavichord or Positiv organ, depending on which he feels works best for a particular prelude or fugue. Damned interesting, and quite pleasant - including the organ.

WTC Bk2 - Anthony Newman
Columbia M2 32875
From the jacket notes:
"The Positiv organ was built in 1973 by Rieger of Austria (Rieger Orgelbau, Schwarzach, Vorarberg-Austria) and was designed as a continuo instrument, having a 56-note keyboard that slides back into the trunk-like case for easy portability. Because it measures only 2'-7" high, 2'-2" deep, and 4'-8" in length, the largest pipes of the 8' stop are laid horizontally within the case.

The Stops: (1 7/8 inches of wind)
8' Holzgedackt Padouk wood
4' Rohrflöte 25% tin
2' Superoctave 75% tin (remaining stops the same)
1 1/3' Quinte
1' Octave
1/2' Octave
The harpsichord was built by Eric Herz, Cambridge, MA, and is a copy of one by Haas, ca. 1735. It has two 8' stops, one 4' stop, one 16' stop on separate sounding board, plus one Nasal and two Lute stops.
The double-strung clavichord was also built by Eric Herz, and is a copy of a clavichord by Schiedmaeyer, ca. 1789."

I suspect the purists among us are scandalized by the very idea of such treatment. If a purist - or anyone else - needs a sample to confirm the rightness of his instinct, I can probably upload a couple without damaging my conscience.



ps. The clavichord is very pleasant.


----------



## hpowders

Sure, if you can hear the darn thing!


----------



## shangoyal

Folks, my preference is swaying towards the piano lately - maybe it's Gould's playing!


----------



## Ukko

shangoyal said:


> Folks, my preference is swaying towards the piano lately - maybe it's Gould's playing!




I've read enough of your posts to suspect that you have room for the harpsichord and clavichord - and organ and 8-string guitar too.


----------



## Dustin

I'm not worried about being "historically accurate" so I'll go with the piano. It just sounds more pleasing to my ears. There are certain cases where I love to hear the harpsichord though such as his 5th Brandenburg Concerto.


----------



## violadude

Dustin said:


> I'm not worried about being "historically accurate" so I'll go with the piano. It just sounds more pleasing to my ears. There are certain cases where I love to hear the harpsichord though such as his 5th Brandenburg Concerto.


Oh ya, the 5th Brandenburg must be on harpsichord. Piano would be so icky there.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> One thing I can tell you: Beethoven sounds _terrible_ on a harpsichord :lol: Bach, in my experience, sounds pretty good on any instrument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can hardly go wrong with either a piano or harpsichord, in my view--Bach makes it easy.
> 
> *p.s.* Easy to see what Chopin saw in Bach listening to this prelude--love it.


The proper instrument to hear contemporary Beethoven is a Broadwood fortepiano, not a harpsichord. Plenty of replicas around. Plenty of magnificent Beethoven fortepiano performances too.


----------



## Woodduck

Pianists have a right to play Bach's harpsichord concertos on the Steinway, but you couldn't drag me to that concert with a team of Clydesdales.

For the solo music, I can enjoy any keyboard instrument except a fortepiano that sounds like something from Miss Kitty's saloon. The _Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue_ sounds most appropriately gnarly on harpsichord. For extended listening, and for contrapuntal works where the dynamic control of individual voices can help clarify the texture, I'll take piano. There can be no question that J.S. knew very well that the harpsichord's lack of dynamic variety and gradation was a limitation on expression, and that he would have welcomed a good piano in that respect.

Speculation on whether Bach would write for the piano "if he were alive today" is silly. If Bach were alive today he would be someone completely different - a barista, perhaps. He would then compose the _Starbuck's Cantata_, and the question of what to play it on would probably not be raised frequently.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> I think Bach on the piano is bad.
> I think Bach on the clavichord is bad if one cannot even hear the music.
> I think Bach on the Goldilocks und Sohn harpsichord is just right!


What a threedbear analogy.


----------



## hpowders

I am a musical purist. I prefer Bach on harpsichord and gut strings. I prefer Beethoven and Mozart on fortepiano. I prefer Ives' Concord piano sonata on a Steinway. I am not a musical romantic. Never was. Never will be.

Listen the way you want. I'm happy.


----------



## JCarmel

I really enjoy both...I've the Archiv/Pinnock set that Trev mentions & Gould & Perahia on piano...& I loikes 'em all!


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> Pianists have a right to play Bach's harpsichord concertos on the Steinway, but *you couldn't drag **me to that concert with a team of Clydesdales.*
> 
> For the solo music, I can enjoy any keyboard instrument except a fortepiano that sounds like something from Miss Kitty's saloon. The _Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue_ sounds most appropriately gnarly on harpsichord. For extended listening, and for contrapuntal works where the dynamic control of individual voices can help clarify the texture, I'll take piano. There can be no question that J.S. knew very well that the harpsichord's lack of dynamic variety and gradation was a limitation on expression, and that he would have welcomed a good piano in that respect.
> 
> Speculation on whether Bach would write for the piano "if he were alive today" is silly. If Bach were alive today he would be someone completely different - a barista, perhaps. He would then compose the _Starbuck's Cantata_, and the question of what to play it on would probably not be raised frequently.


You couldn't get any wiser, Bud.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I like both so can't make a preference


----------



## hpowders

PoisonIV said:


> I like both so can't make a preference


Spoken like a diplomat!! :lol:

You will live long on TC!!!


----------



## tomhh

I always listen to piano version of Bach's music.But if someone play it by harpsichord, I would like it.


----------



## worov

I love it on piano. Delightful on clavichord too (check out Ralph Kirkpatrick's recording of the WTC).


----------



## fairbanks

I initially preferred harpsichord but have recently appreciated piano.


----------



## Peter Gibaloff

Harpsichord 

It sounds like impossible lute or guitar  fast (fast movements) with many notes and ornaments.

Piano has too much reverb.


----------



## Manxfeeder

hpowders said:


> You couldn't get any wiser, Bud.


Rimshot, please. :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Manxfeeder said:


> Rimshot, please. :lol:


This is what I do!


----------



## pianississimo

Bach was a master musician and the sounds he could have got from a violin or organ would have wiped the floor with his harpsichord. If you had offered him a modern Steinway there's no chance he'd have turned it down. It's said that fugues are better on the harpsichord due to the nature of its sound. You can't favour one voice over another. Any competent pianist should be able to do that on a standard piano but with far better tone than would be possible on the harpsichord. 

That said, I do like the harpsichord. I like the Brandenburg concertos and they really do have to be played with a harpsichord. 

Now I'm arguing with myself... That's what train delays do to me


----------



## Bulldog

pianississimo said:


> Bach was a master musician and the sounds he could have got from a violin or organ would have wiped the floor with his harpsichord. (


Well, Bach did have violins and organs available. Yet, for many works he chose the harpsichord - his choice, and I'll trust his decisions.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Hmmm, depends on the piece but for many of them I prefer harpsichord....the instrument just has more character, at least on recording. Piano I'm just so used to hearing, it can get boring. But I LOVED listening to my piano teacher play Bach (or anything), she seemed to get the instrument to have such colorful timbre, her playing has such a refinement, yet so much emotion and immediacy at the same time.....I couldn't get enough of it.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I really don't mind. I generally prefer the tone of the piano, but with Bach and a lot of Baroque music, I am in two minds.
The music is so good anyway that it will sound amazing on just about any instrument.


----------



## aajj

It's great music on either instrument but i prefer piano.


----------



## hpowders

^^^Everybody's different.


----------



## wolfango

The quality of the interpretation is, perhaps, most important, but if we forget "history" and focus in the music I believe that the piano has nicer sound.


----------



## Albert7

I go for either... even the Goldberg Variations on harp is dope.


----------



## hpowders

Many of Bach's keyboard runs sound artificial and mechanical on piano. This NEVER happens on harpsichord.
I wonder why? Could it be that Bach actually wrote the Goldberg Variations, Keyboard Partitas and WTC for harpsichord??


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> Many of Bach's keyboard runs sound artificial and mechanical on piano. This NEVER happens on harpsichord.
> I wonder why? Could it be that Bach actually wrote the Goldberg Variations, Keyboard Partitas and WTC for harpsichord??


Charles Rosen used to argue that the 6-voice ricercare from The Musical Offering was composed for the piano:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/magazine/best-piano-composition-six-parts-genius.html

I think it sounds stunning, though tastes may differ.


----------



## hpowders

Instead of wasting his time on esoteric books and lectures, Rosen may have better spent his time learning to play the harpsichord if he loved Bach so much.


----------



## Dim7

For solo works, both are okay, but for anything else, piano is utter heresy and I despise everyone who disagrees (just kidding)


----------



## ptr

hpowders said:


> Many of Bach's keyboard runs sound artificial and mechanical on piano. This NEVER happens on harpsichord.
> I wonder why? Could it be that Bach actually wrote the Goldberg Variations, Keyboard Partitas and WTC for harpsichord??


I think not, they sound more idiomatic on clavichord! :angel:

/ptr


----------



## Mandryka

Blancrocher said:


> Charles Rosen used to argue that the 6-voice ricercare from The Musical Offering was composed for the piano:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/magazine/best-piano-composition-six-parts-genius.html
> 
> I think it sounds stunning, though tastes may differ.


 I haven't read Rosen's arguments, I couldn't find them in that article, I hope it's not just that he wrote it for someone who had a piano. The 6 part ricercar has . . . 6 voices! Do you have to tinker around with it to make it fit on a single keyboard?

One thing's for sure, Bach wasn't thinking of a modern instrument. Is there a recording of Opfer using a Silbermann piano?

I'm starting to really love Opfer, by the way. I bought a Cd by Gerd Zacher a few months ago and it made me see the music afresh.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mandryka said:


> I haven't read Rosen's arguments, I hope it's not just that he wrote it for someone who had a piano.


well, ahem...yep.


----------



## hpowders

ptr said:


> I think not, they sound more idiomatic on clavichord! :angel:
> 
> /ptr


I can barely hear the clavichord and my hearing's "20-20". One of the few organs I possess that is still working properly. I bought a WTC on clavichord and listened to it once. Never again.

Not only is the clavichord difficult to hear, but it is a struggle to keep it playing in tune.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> Instead of wasting his time on esoteric books and lectures, Rosen may have better spent his time learning to play the harpsichord if he loved Bach so much.


Rosen's books are intended for the average music-lover. They're hardly esoteric.


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Rosen's books are intended for the average music-lover. They're hardly esoteric.


I wonder how many "average" music lovers can honestly say they have read a Rosen book from cover to cover.


----------



## GodNickSatan

hpowders said:


> Many of Bach's keyboard runs sound artificial and mechanical on piano. This NEVER happens on harpsichord.
> I wonder why? Could it be that Bach actually wrote the Goldberg Variations, Keyboard Partitas and WTC for harpsichord??


I know it has already been discussed, but Bach wrote those pieces for the clavichord, not the harpsichord. The harpsichord was used for the concertos. As far as the poll goes, I think a good balance between the two would be to hear Bach played on a fortepiano from Beethoven's time, but I haven't heard any recordings like that.

Here is a good recording of Bach being played on the clavichord: 




This guy has a really good channel. He plays a lot of Bach, he even plays Mozart and Beethoven on the clavichord which is really interesting to hear. There are no sound issues to me. Sure, you would have a hard time trying to hear what's going on in a concert hall, but on a recording like this it's fine.


----------



## hpowders

GodNickSatan said:


> I know it has already been discussed, but Bach wrote those pieces for the clavichord, not the harpsichord. The harpsichord was used for the concertos. As far as the poll goes, I think a good balance between the two would be to hear Bach played on a fortepiano from Beethoven's time, but I haven't heard any recordings like that.
> 
> Here is a good recording of Bach being played on the clavichord:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy has a really good channel. He plays a lot of Bach, he even plays Mozart and Beethoven on the clavichord which is really interesting to hear. There are no sound issues to me. Sure, you would have a hard time trying to hear what's going on in a concert hall, but on a recording like this it's fine.


And the clavichord was meant to be heard in an intimate setting, very close up. The instrument does not project very well on a recording and especially at Alice Tully Hall!

I have the WTC on clavichord and I hardly ever listen to it. It's excruciating-the instrument goes in and out of tune and one can hardly hear it.


----------



## Mandryka

GodNickSatan said:


> I know it has already been discussed, but Bach wrote those pieces for the clavichord, not the harpsichord. The harpsichord was used for the concertos. As far as the poll goes, I think a good balance between the two would be to hear Bach played on a fortepiano from Beethoven's time, but I haven't heard any recordings like that.
> 
> Here is a good recording of Bach being played on the clavichord:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy has a really good channel. He plays a lot of Bach, he even plays Mozart and Beethoven on the clavichord which is really interesting to hear. There are no sound issues to me. Sure, you would have a hard time trying to hear what's going on in a concert hall, but on a recording like this it's fine.


Richard Troeger started what was was planned to be a very extensive series of JSB music on clavichord, what he's released is exceptional. And there's Jaroslav Tuma, who has a fine WTC and a recording of the Goldbergs too. Michael Tsalka recorded the Goldbergs just a couple of years ago, very distinctively - well worth trying to see how you like it. One of the most interesting WTC's for me - Chorzempa's - uses clavichord for quite a few of the pieces. Another interesting clavichord player to explore is Jocelyne Cuiller.

I think you go a bit too far when you say that Bach wrote this music _for_ clavichord, though I expect he played it on clavichord and other keyboards.

One thing I'd like to hear, out of a sort of masochistic curiosity, is the late organ works played on clavichord. Imagine the big prelude and fugue from CU 3. (I can just imagine Bulldog's face!) We know that it was common practice for organists to practice on a pair of stacked clavichords.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> One thing I'd like to hear, out of a sort of masochistic curiosity, is the late organ works played on clavichord. Imagine the big prelude and fugue from CU 3. (I can just imagine Bulldog's face!) We know that it was common practice for organists to practice on a pair of stacked clavichords.


Just the thought of such a performance makes my hair stand on end; St. Anne would certainly roll over in her grave (if she is in one).


----------



## Giordano

I would venture a guess that Bach would want us to hear the music behind the sounds.


----------



## SamilGungor

I prefer harpsichord very strongly too. I hardly ever listen Bach played with a piano, when I do, they are only the solo works like Goldbergs, WTC, Inventions-Sinfonias. Concertos, sonatas etc. are almost impossible to listen for me if they are played with a piano.


----------



## Couchie

Harpsichord porn:


----------



## nbergeron

I much prefer the piano just because I like the timbre of the instrument better, but I don't like it when pianists over-interpret Bach (adding dynamic flourishes and such that wouldn't be possible on a harpsichord).


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

MrTortoise said:


> Piano, harpsichord, meh, Bach even sounds good on
> 
> View attachment 34384


I remember reading a newspaper article by the late Douglas Adams who, as he wrote, was listening to some midi files of (I think) _The Well-Tempered Clavier_ on his laptop. He reflected that Bach's music sounds wonderful no matter which instrument(s) are playing it. I'd go along with that; among my favourite Bach recordings is that of the _Art of Fugue_ played by the New Century Saxophone Quartet, and it's wonderful.


----------



## Pugg

Piano and so do 60% of voters


----------



## helenora

true, piano. and no need to talk about authenticity. it won't convince me


----------



## Pugg

helenora said:


> true, piano. and no need to talk about authenticity. it won't convince me


Me neither, I am not saying it should stop, but I pass :tiphat:


----------



## Adair

Piano generally but I do find Isolde Ahlgrimm's recordings on harpsichord remarkable. I also enjoy the old Thurston Dart recordings.

View attachment 8
,1385[/ATTACH]


----------



## hpowders

I've always preferred Bach's solo keyboard works on harpsichord. The harpsichord can make effects sound more profound than on the piano.

When Bach writes a long trill for effect, in one of the keyboard Partitas it always sounds more stunning and profound on harpsichord than on piano.

You think it's because the harpsichord was the instrument Bach was writing for? You think?


----------



## premont

Pugg said:


> Piano and so do 60% of voters


Trust the majority!

Very democratic if nothing else.


----------



## jegreenwood

Sonata said:


> I enjoy the concertos with the original harpsichord, but I personally cannot listen to solo harpsichord music for any length of time. So his solo keyboard works, I'll take the piano.


Perahia can almost make the concertos work on piano. For solo keyboard, I like both but prefer piano.


----------



## Guest

I am not a purist and I really love the sound of the Cembalo.I heard it so many times over the past years.A friend of mine plays it very well and I feel no resistance to it.I love the Majestic sound and for what it is.It can sing and penetrate into your soul.Gustav Leonhardt is one of the musicians I admire most.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

hpowders said:


> I've always preferred Bach's solo keyboard works on harpsichord. The harpsichord can make effects sound more profound than on the piano.
> 
> When Bach writes a long trill for effect, in one of the keyboard Partitas it always sounds more stunning and profound on harpsichord than on piano.
> 
> You think it's because the harpsichord was the instrument Bach was writing for? You think?


No, I think it's purely a matter of each listener's personal preference. Nor should those who prefer the harpsichord run away with the idea that Bach would necessarily have done so. He was enough of an enthusiast for early pianos to act as a demonstrator for them.


----------



## Mandryka

Animal the Drummer said:


> No, I think it's purely a matter of each listener's personal preference. Nor should those who prefer the harpsichord run away with the idea that Bach would necessarily have done so. He was enough of an enthusiast for early pianos to act as a demonstrator for them.


I think this is a red herring. Who cares about people's preferences, or about Bach's? If people like piano or whatever, very good, but it really is a private matter.

The question is: what did the composer mean by the music and what sort of instrument is best for playing it as meant? And hence questions about physical properties of the instrument and the sort of performance style which it supports are relevant: decay and sustain, the role of dynamics, the sort of portato which can be achieved etc.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Mandryka said:


> I think this is a red herring. Who cares about people's preferences, or about Bach's? If people like piano or whatever, very good, but it really is a private matter.
> 
> The question is: what did the composer mean by the music and what sort of instrument is best for playing it as meant? And hence questions about physical properties of the instrument and the sort of performance style which it supports are relevant: decay and sustain, the role of dynamics, the sort of portato which can be achieved etc.


Who cares about people's preferences? A forum is a strange haunt for any who don't. Who cares about Bach's preferences? Well, you apparently, given the questions you raise - reasonably enough - in your second paragraph. Questions about different instruments are certainly relevant, but the previous poster wasn't asking any. He/she was making dogmatic statements about what sounds more "profound" and it was those with which I took, and still take, issue.


----------



## Mandryka

Animal the Drummer said:


> He/she was making dogmatic statements about what sounds more "profound" and it was those with which I took, and still take, issue.


Oh well, in that case, you're completely right.

I think stating preferences is a childish self-obsessed egotistical thing to do, like saying what your favourite number is. All those poles are another example of the same phenomenon.


----------



## isorhythm

I don't think the counterpoint in Bach's non-organ keyboard works is different from the counterpoint in any of his other works, written for instruments that can and did sustain tones, vary dynamics and articulation, etc. The limitations of the harpsichord are, as far as I can tell, totally irrelevant to Bach's thought in composing these works.

So why should we be attached to that instrument?


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> I think stating preferences is a childish self-obsessed egotistical thing to do, like saying what your favourite number is. All those poles are another example of the same phenomenon.


I think stating preferences is sometimes just about prioritizing, or communication. Its kind of a hard thing to avoid on a forum, even if one is consciously trying to avoid it. In your post you've indirectly stated a preference.

Personally I think its fine and I often find the information interesting. Its when individuals try to present their preferences as though they are facts without offering any additional evidence that I might take issue with it.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> I don't think the counterpoint in Bach's non-organ keyboard works is different from the counterpoint in any of his other works, written for instruments that can and did sustain tones, vary dynamics and articulation, etc. The limitations of the harpsichord are, as far as I can tell, totally irrelevant to Bach's thought in composing these works.
> 
> So why should we be attached to that instrument?


Not limitations, strengths. Where you need to play fast, bright, light , clear, not loud, not legato. This is not easy on a metal framed piano.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> In your post you've indirectly stated a preference.


I hope not.

Elkcnjlecnckjndkcjn


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> I hope not.
> 
> Elkcnjlecnckjndkcjn


Well I think its fair to say you prefer it when others do not state their preferences, but post 172 is suggestive that you prefer Bach played on harpsichord - however I would guess it depends on the performer (also a preference).


----------



## premont

tdc said:


> Well I think its fair to say you prefer it when others do not state their preferences, but post 172 is suggestive that you prefer Bach played on harpsichord - however I would guess it depends on the performer (also a preference).


Reading the heading of this thread I get the impression, that the point of this thread is, that we are asked to state our preferences, but of course I may have got it wrong.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> Elkcnjlecnckjndkcjn


What is this? Some secret code?


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> Oh well, in that case, you're completely right.
> 
> I think stating preferences is a childish self-obsessed egotistical thing to do...


This is why I prefer not to state my preferences.


----------



## Pugg

premont said:


> What is this? Some secret code?


No, to fill up ones answer when the post is to short :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka

Pugg said:


> No, to fill up ones answer when the post is to short :tiphat:


Wrong. It's a secret code which when deciphered will reveal my preferences.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> Not limitations, strengths. Where you need to play fast, bright, light , clear, not loud, not legato. This is not easy on a metal framed piano.


It's not hard to play non legato on a modern piano. People do it all the time!


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> It's not hard to play non legato on a modern piano. People do it all the time!


I know. It's the combination of all those things which is maybe not so natural.

Listen to the difference in brilliance in the opining of the Chromatic Fantasy here by Hill






and here by Schiff






and I think you hear straight away how the piano just completely lacks the brilliance and velocity and delicacy and clarity that Bach meant. It may have other strengths of its own, I'm not sure.


----------



## Bulldog

I agree with Mandryka and certainly prefer the harpsichord version. I think the Fantasy needs very sharp contours which the piano can't approach.

However, the above comments are not going to matter to those folks who have a relatively negative opinion of the harpsichord.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> It's not hard to play non legato on a modern piano. People do it all the time!


Or what pianists think is non legato. The rather close non legato (Marpung's ordentliches Fortgehen) is impossible to imitate on a piano, due to its slower action.

Also Mandryka's words above about brilliance and velocity is an important point, the long arpeggio sequences in the Chromatic Fantasy displaying this very well.


----------



## isorhythm

I'll concede the opening of the Chromatic Fantasy sounds better on the harpsichord.

But I'm more interested in contrapuntal writing. You get much greater clarity of line on the piano.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> and I think you hear straight away how the piano just completely lacks the brilliance and velocity and delicacy and clarity that Bach meant. It may have other strengths of its own, I'm not sure.


I think saying 'what Bach meant' is kind of problematic. I do think the piano and harpsichord both have different strengths. I enjoy Bach played on both, but slightly prefer harpsichord - especially in the concertos. Good soloists can make Bach sound fantastic on either instrument. One of the most powerful musical experiences I've had was hearing Bach's Chaconne played on a guitar, so I am not a HIP purist although I'm a fan of the movement.

I thought both those excerpts sounded good. There is a crispness to the harpsichord that is nice, but I preferred the way Schiff played the passage.


----------



## kartikeys

That's what my recent blog post is about. The harp or the piano would be better I feel.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

tdc said:


> I think saying 'what Bach meant' is kind of problematic. I do think the piano and harpsichord both have different strengths. I enjoy Bach played on both, but slightly prefer harpsichord - especially in the concertos. Good soloists can make Bach sound fantastic on either instrument. One of the most powerful musical experiences I've had was hearing Bach's Chaconne played on a guitar, so I am not a HIP purist although I'm a fan of the movement.
> 
> I thought both those excerpts sounded good. There is a crispness to the harpsichord that is nice, but I preferred the way Schiff played the passage.


Good post, agree 100%. On the guitar point, I know of no better Bach playing on any instrument than that of John Williams.


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> I'll concede the opening of the Chromatic Fantasy sounds better on the harpsichord.
> 
> But I'm more interested in contrapuntal writing. You get much greater clarity of line on the piano.


I realize that many folks have this clarity position concerning the piano, but my ears have always told me it's just the opposite.


----------



## Stirling

the modern piano had, at least in some point, the harpsichord of Bach in mind.


----------



## Mandryka

Here's some contrapuntal bach, the quodlibet on piano by Schiff






and on harpsichord by Hill






If "clarity of line" means distinctness of the voices, I think the videos support Bulldog's ears.

I know I'm not supposed to reveal preferences, but I think Hill's voicing is outstanding here!


----------



## isorhythm

It is certainly _possible_ to blur contrapuntal lines on a piano if, like Andras Schiff, you want to for some unexplained reason.

Try Gould.


----------



## tdc

Animal the Drummer said:


> I know of no better Bach playing on any instrument than that of John Williams.


Good to see another Bach guitar enthusiast here! I can't say I hold John Williams in quite as high regard as you, though he is very good. His interpretation of BwV 1006a is the best I've heard.


----------



## premont

Stirling said:


> the modern piano had, *at least in some point*, the harpsichord of Bach in mind.


I do not get it. Which point do you think of?


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> I know I'm not supposed to reveal preferences, but I think Hill's voicing is outstanding here!


Its nice, but I think Hill takes it a little slow, it starts to sound too much like French Baroque. Maybe there is more clarity of lines, but I prefer Schiff's phrasing.

One of the better harpsichord recordings I've heard so far is the Kenneth Gilbert that couchie posted in post 155.

All this said, you and bulldog have listened to way more Bach keyboard recordings than I have and I always enjoy reading your thoughts on this topic.


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> It is certainly _possible_ to blur contrapuntal lines on a piano if, like Andras Schiff, you want to for some unexplained reason.
> 
> Try Gould.


Yes, Gould is fantastic. However, my feeling is that Gould's counterpoint isn't effective because he's playing a piano; it's effective because he's Gould.


----------



## KenOC

isorhythm said:


> It is certainly _possible_ to blur contrapuntal lines on a piano if, like Andras Schiff, you want to for some unexplained reason.


Schiff's newer recording of the WTC (2012) is incredibly detailed and brings out all the lines very well indeed. It is played entirely without pedal. How somebody can claim the lines are "blurred" escapes me.


----------



## hpowders

If you could ask Bach, what do you think he would say? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an "h" and it ain't hpowders.

This actually works because there is a new iPhone App which can instantly translate the other person's language into one's own. Therefore the "h".


----------



## KenOC

Let's not forget that Bach sold pianos. I never heard that he sold harpsichords... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Silbermann#Silbermann_and_Bach


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> Schiff's newer recording of the WTC (2012) is incredibly detailed and brings out all the lines very well indeed. It is played entirely without pedal. How somebody can claim the lines are "blurred" escapes me.[/IMG]


They sounded blurred to me in the clip Mandryka posted. Anyway I'm on your side here! I don't know this 2012 recording but will check it out.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> Let's not forget that Bach sold pianos. I never heard that he sold harpsichords...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Silbermann#Silbermann_and_Bach


Yes, the retail trade position. It's good to see a member using capitalism to advance his argument.


----------



## Faustian

Gould had some interesting thoughts on the topic:


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> it starts to sound too much like French Baroque.


What French music are you thinking of?


----------



## Mandryka

Let me just sound out a conjecture for refutation, to try and move this on. 

In fugues and canons, one approach is to pick one voice as the main one and bring it out more than the others, on the model of melody and accompaniment in a lied, or a concerto with ripieno and principal instruments. The pianists tend to do this more than the harpsichordists, maybe because of their background in galant music, maybe just to simplify the listener's experience, and maybe just because they can do more with dynamics anyway. The result isn't necessarily that some of the voices aren't clear, just that some voices are sometimes given a more important role in the whole. Not all voices are treated equally. 

I just listened a bit to Schiff's second WTC2, the one Ken likes, and he does this sometimes, especially in faster fugues. 

I expect it is possible to play genuine voix égales style on a modern piano, even in fast fugues (maybe someone who knows more about the issues here will comment - maybe the way the notes sustain make it impossible at speed, I don't know.) But as a matter of fact the pianists seem to adopt a voix égales style less than the harpsichordists, and the harpsichordists who are most successful at equality of voices (eg Leonhardt) seem to slow it all down.

You may think that the difference is very subtle, that you would have to be a nerd to care. But I can assure you that the difference in musical experience between Schiff 2 and Leonhardt in BWV 873 (fugue) for example is pretty major! And not because of surface things like that they're using instruments with different timbres or that they playing at different tempos -- it goes right to the inner life of the music. 

This pianistic approach reminds me of the way some musicians sing Renaissance masses, with different voices taking the centre stage at different times. I'm not saying it's a bad way to play, or an inauthentic way to play. I just want to describe the phenomenon and understand its consequences. 

I'll try to find some examples later on YouTube if I have times


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> What French music are you thinking of?


When I think of French Baroque keyboard music there is generally more ornamentation, this can have the effect of prolonging certain passages and slowing the music down.

I'm pointing this out as a stylistic difference though. I do like the music of Couperin, Rameau etc.


----------



## premont

tdc said:


> ... it starts to sound too much like French Baroque. ..


One of the most important influences upon Bach was the French Baroque, and you find French traits everywhere in his music. 
It is not unlikely, that the arpeggio passages in the Chromatic Fantasy are inspired - at least to some degree - by the French Prelude non mensuré.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> I expect it is possible to play genuine voix égales style on a modern piano, even in fast fugues (maybe someone who knows more about the issues here will comment - maybe the way the notes sustain make it impossible at speed,


I think Gould shows that it is possible at fast speed, even if his non legato tends towards staccato.

May we conclusively state, that the problem is mainly caused by the pianists and not as much by the instrument?


----------



## Delicious Manager

It has to be the harpsichord. The piano is simply the wrong instrument. Had Bach written for the piano, his music would surely have been influenced by its characteristics and, therefore, have been different. Bach wrote for the organ and harpsichord (or, more accurately, the clavichord in many cases). Bach did, in fact, try one of Cristofori's early pianos, but he was not much taken with it and never played one again (and certainly never wrote for it). He did, however, make some suggestions about how improvements might be made, which Cristofori gratefully, accepted and incorporated into later models.


----------



## Mandryka

premont said:


> I think Gould shows that it is possible at fast speed, even if his non legato tends towards staccato.
> 
> May we conclusively state, that the problem is mainly caused by the pianists and not as much by the instrument?


I guess he tinkered with the piano in some way to get this effect, I've never looked into just what was so different about his piano.


----------



## tdc

premont said:


> One of the most important influences upon Bach was the French Baroque, and you find French traits everywhere in his music.
> It is not unlikely, that the arpeggio passages in the Chromatic Fantasy are inspired - at least to some degree - by the French Prelude non mensuré.


Certainly, there was also considerable Italian influence, of course this does not make Bach's music purely Italian or French. The underlying driving force of Bach's compositional style is North German counterpoint and I think this requires a slightly different approach. This said my comment was more of a general impression and preference than a claim of "right or wrong". I'm not against performers interpreting Bach in various different ways.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> I guess he tinkered with the piano in some way to get this effect, I've never looked into just what was so different about his piano.


Maybe, but if so is the case, I do not know what precisely he did.

Interesting if somebody in this forum knows more about this subject.


----------



## premont

tdc said:


> Certainly, there was also considerable Italian influence, of course this does not make Bach's music purely Italian or French. The underlying driving force of Bach's compositional style is North German counterpoint and I think this requires a slightly different approach. This said my comment was more of a general impression and preference than a claim of "right or wrong". I'm not against performers interpreting Bach in various different ways.


Oh. yes the "chromatic" fugue is of course obviously in the style of the North German counterpoint. But many of his keyboard works are written in other styles - more or less. The dance movements of the English suites, the cello suites and the organ fantasy BWV 562 are obviosly in French style e.g.. In the first half of the chromatic fantasy I hear a mixture of styles, which are the North German stylus phantasticus (Weckmann, Bruhns e.g.) and the even more free style of the French prelude non mensuré (Louis Couperin e,g,). My point is that I think the first part of the chromatic fantasy generally is performed too metrical.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> In fugues and canons, one approach is to pick one voice as the main one and bring it out more than the others, on the model of melody and accompaniment in a lied, or a concerto with ripieno and principal instruments. The pianists tend to do this more than the harpsichordists, maybe because of their background in galant music, maybe just to simplify the listener's experience, and maybe just because they can do more with dynamics anyway. The result isn't necessarily that some of the voices aren't clear, just that some voices are sometimes given a more important role in the whole. Not all voices are treated equally.


But your main point is, if I do not get you wrong, that many pianists tend to play Bachs music in a homophone (romanticized?)way, thereby supressing the counterpoint, ignoring that counterpoint is, what this music first and foremost is about?


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> I guess he tinkered with the piano in some way to get this effect, I've never looked into just what was so different about his piano.


He liked the action on his pianos very light, but this has nothing to do with playing the voices equally - in fact there's nothing you could do physically to a piano to equalize voices, that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Harpsichord is too hard on the ears for any extended period of listening.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> He liked the action on his pianos very light, but this has nothing to do with playing the voices equally - in fact there's nothing you could do physically to a piano to equalize voices, that doesn't make any sense.


So what's (if anything) is the consequence of a light action on the way the notes sustain?


----------



## Mandryka

premont said:


> But your main point is, if I do not get you wrong, that many pianists tend to play Bachs music in a homophone (romanticized?)way, thereby supressing the counterpoint


More or less, yes.



premont said:


> counterpoint is, what this music first and foremost is about?


that was sneaky, but I think it's true, yes.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> So what's (if anything) is the consequence of a light action on the way the notes sustain?


None, it affects only the attack.

The balance of different voices is controlled by the player. Maybe a light action makes it _easier_ for some players to achieve balance, I don't know, but there's no obvious reason why that would be the case.

By the way - I don't agree that the way to play Bach is for all notes to be exactly equal in volume. I don't think that's what good balance means. Bach wrote intricate counterpoint for all kinds of combinations of voices, strings and winds, none of which would be expected to produce the unvarying dynamic of a harpsichord.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> By the way - I don't agree that the way to play Bach is for all notes to be exactly equal in volume. I don't think that's what good balance means.


Great. Can you give an example of a solo keyboard piece where you think the best voicing is achieved by dynamically highlighting one voice at the expense of another? Preferably, given the context for this discussion, in a way you can't achieve on a harpsichord or organ.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> Great. Can you give an example of a solo keyboard piece where you think the best voicing is achieved by dynamically highlighting one voice at the expense of another? Preferably, given the context for this discussion, in a way you can't achieve on a harpsichord or organ.


No, I'm not thinking of highlighting one voice over another. But the voices have phrases, and the phrases have shapes. A pianist can shape the phrases just as singers or string players would, while keeping the overall balance of the voices equal.

There may also be places in Bach where it makes musical sense to bring out one voice, I won't categorically say there are none. But that's not primarily what I meant.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> None, it affects only the attack.
> 
> By the way - ... Bach wrote intricate counterpoint for all kinds of combinations of voices, strings and winds, none of which would be expected to produce the unvarying dynamic of a harpsichord.


But we have to assume, that he, when he wrote music for harpsichord, took the unvarying dynamics into consideration. 
For that reason your "chamber music" argument is irrelevant.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> No, I'm not thinking of highlighting one voice over another. But the voices have phrases, and the phrases have shapes. A pianist can shape the phrases just as singers or string players would, while keeping the overall balance of the voices equal.


A harpsichordist can shape the phrases equally well as a pianist, and still keep the balance of the parts equal.


----------



## isorhythm

premont said:


> But we have to assume, that he, when he wrote music for harpsichord, took the unvarying dynamics into consideration.


So what about the music shows Bach taking the unvarying dynamics into consideration?

I'm open to this argument, but it would need to be grounded in the music, not the mere fact that Bach composed on a harpsichord.


----------



## isorhythm

Bulldog said:


> Yes, the retail trade position. It's good to see a member using capitalism to advance his argument.


It's a perfectly good argument. Why do you think Bach sold a Silbermann piano, or told Silbermann he liked his pianos, if he didn't want people to use them?


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> So what about the music shows Bach taking the unvarying dynamics into consideration?
> 
> I'm open to this argument, but it would need to be grounded in the music, not the mere fact that Bach composed on a harpsichord.


You just have to look at the score of one of the fugues from the WTC to see the equality of the parts in the voice leading.

I think it is you, who need to explain why the parts should *not* be equal, and not be played with equal balance.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> It's a perfectly good argument. Why do you think Bach sold a Silbermann piano, or told Silbermann he liked his pianos, if he didn't want people to use them?


To make profit of course.

Have you any reference to Bach's opinion of Silbermann's fortepianos.

And if we suppose that he liked them, you can not deduce, that he would have liked the modern Steinway, which has very little in common with Silbermann's fortepianos.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> More or less, yes.
> that was sneaky, but I think it's true, yes.


It wasn't meant sneaky at all.

However I note, that we agree about the important issues concerning this subject.


----------



## isorhythm

premont said:


> You just have to look at the score of one of the fugues from the WTC to see the equality of the parts in the voice leading.
> 
> I think it is you, who need to explain why the parts should *not* be equal, and not be played with equal balance.


I think they should generally be played with equal balance, as I've said. The advantage of the piano over the harpsichord is greater clarity of texture and flexibility of phrasing.

The equality of parts is evident in all of Bach's contrapuntal writing, for all combinations of instruments. What I am asking is why the keyboard music is special - why it alone requires a total absence of dynamic variation.


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> It's a perfectly good argument. Why do you think Bach sold a Silbermann piano, or told Silbermann he liked his pianos, if he didn't want people to use them?


I never said it wasn't a good argument; actually, I indicated it was a cool argument. I always think highly of folks using the forces of supply and demand to buttress their positions.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> The equality of parts is evident in all of Bach's contrapuntal writing, for all combinations of instruments. What I am asking is why the keyboard music is special - why it alone requires a total absence of dynamic variation.


Is it possible to balance the voices equally and to play one voice louder than another using piano?


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> I think they should generally be played with equal balance, as I've said. The advantage of the piano over the harpsichord is greater clarity of texture and flexibility of phrasing.


There you go again with that clarity argument which is not clear at all, but now you've added in flexibility. Have you given any thought to the premise that there might be an inverse relationship between flexibility and clarity of texture?


----------



## isorhythm

^I'm totally confused by the above comments.

In Bach's motets, do you all think the singers and accompanying players are singing and playing every single note at exactly the same volume?


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> ^I'm totally confused by the above comments.
> 
> In Bach's motets, do you all think the singers and accompanying players are singing and playing every single note at exactly the same volume?


In a motet with different singers you have different timbres. But it should be easy to make clear what you mean, just post an example of some suitably illustrative piano playing.


----------



## isorhythm

Here: 




I think the balance is pretty equal, though I'm at work and can't listen all that carefully or look around for the very best example.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the balance is pretty equal, though I'm at work and can't listen all that carefully or look around for the very best example.


Sure, thanks. But I meant a piano recording which is voix égales and where one voice is louder. That's what I think you need.

Nice to hear a motet thought! Not heard them for years.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> Sure, thanks. But I meant a piano recording which is voix égales and where one voice is louder.


I don't think one voice should be louder in Bach's keyboard music! That's what I keep saying. Sorry, I missed that you had asked for piano examples specifically.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> I don't think one voice should be louder in Bach's keyboard music! That's what I keep saying. Sorry, I missed that you had asked for piano examples specifically.


This is such a hard medium to have a discussion in! Sorry if I've annoyed you.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> The advantage of the piano over the harpsichord is greater clarity of texture and flexibility of phrasing..


I think this postulate is taken right out of the air.



isorhythm said:


> The equality of parts is evident in all of Bach's contrapuntal writing, for all combinations of instruments. What I am asking is why the keyboard music is special - why it alone requires a total absence of dynamic variation.


Because it is written for instruments with little dynamic variation. Why should we inflate it with pasted dynamic variation, which moreover disturbs the equality of the parts?

Also in Bach's chamber music e.g. the 3. Brandenburg concerto the equality of the parts rules. There are astonishingly few notes, which could be called accompanying notes. So even here it is probably wrong to highlight individual parts by dynamic means.


----------



## isorhythm

You haven't annoyed me, no fear!

I've failed to get my point across to multiple intelligent people here, so clearly the fault is mine. I'll try to be a little clearer....

I'm not talking about emphasizing one voice over another, but about shaping each voice.

Having a polyphonic texture in which each voice is equal doesn't mean that every single note in the piece is sounded at the same volume. For example if I have a choir singing a polyphonic piece, the singers will each shape their phrases in a natural, expressive way - most commonly, becoming slightly louder toward the peak of the phrase and then tapering off, though it will vary according to the expressive demands of the line. Same goes for string players. It's very subtle - it's not the kind of audible variation indicated by dynamic markings. It's just perceived by the listener as giving the line shape and coherence. It actually serves to make a polyphonic texture clearer to the listener, as well as making the music more beautiful and more expressive.

The harpsichord can't do any of this, though a harpsichordist can achieve phrasing with articulation and subtle rubato. The piano can. So why wouldn't we want a keyboard player to be able to shape contrapuntal lines as singers and string and wind players do? Is Bach's contrapuntal writing for keyboard fundamentally different from his contrapuntal writing for ensembles, in some way that demands a total absence of dynamics? I don't see how it is.

The other problem I have with the harpsichord is that the sound itself muddies polyphonic lines. Now, you can say this is subjective, and I guess to some extent it is, but there's one objective fact in my favor: harpsichordists arpeggiate virtually every chord of more than three notes. This is actually considered proper technique. Why? Because large chords on a harpsichord produce a buzzy CLANG that subsumes individual notes, and no one really disputes this. The sound, in other words, is in some way inherently less clear than a piano's, where this isn't necessary.


----------



## isorhythm

premont said:


> Also in Bach's chamber music e.g. the 3. Brandenburg concerto the equality of the parts rules. There are astonishingly few notes, which could be called accompanying notes. So even here it is probably wrong to highlight individual parts by dynamic means.


See above - I don't want to highlight individual parts - what I'm arguing for is the advantage of a keyboard instrument that can shape individual lines exactly as the players in the third Brandenburg do.


----------



## Bulldog

This has been an interesting series of postings concerning harpsichord vs. piano and equality of voices. Two things I'd like to emphasize:

1. I don't want to leave the impression that I have a problem with Bach on the modern piano; I have many hundreds of Bach piano recordings because I am a keyboard person and love both the harpsichord and piano (fortepiano also). My experience is that the effectiveness of a Bach keyboard performance is more a matter of the performer than type of instrument used. This is why I find performances by pianists such as Gould, Tureck, Koroliov, Woodward and Sheppard exceptional. Still, all other factors equal, I do prefer the harpsichord for Bach's music. 

2. I love equal emphasis placed on each musical line; it's one of the prime reasons I think so highly of Gould's Bach. When performers, especially pianists, do not offer equal emphasis, I wonder why and what they are up to because I don't notice anything in the scores that would lead to such a conclusion.

And don't get me started on Bach on modern stringed instruments. They just sound wrong and sour to me.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> See above - I don't want to highlight individual parts - what I'm arguing for is the advantage of a keyboard instrument that can shape individual lines exactly as the players in the third Brandenburg do.


There are, you know, some very lyrical harpsichord players. This is Egarr playing the Goldbergs. Is this the sort of thing you mean?


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> There are, you know, some very lyrical harpsichord players. This is Egarr playing the Goldbergs. Is this the sort of thing you mean?


I fully agree that the harpsichord can be lyrical and expressive, and I have recordings by Egarr. But the harpsichord can't play dynamics. Most of the instruments Bach wrote for could, and did. The piano also can. To me this is a pure advantage.


----------



## isorhythm

Question for more knowledgeable people: Did anyone in the 18th century actually resist the concept of the fortepiano, and argue that the harpsichord was superior? I know lots of people didn't like early fortepianos because of their various technical shortcomings, but did anyone actually argue against the idea of developing a keyboard instrument that could play dynamics, or suggest that it was unnecessary?


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> Question for more knowledgeable people: Did anyone in the 18th century actually resist the concept of the fortepiano, and argue that the harpsichord was superior? I know lots of people didn't like early fortepianos because of their various technical shortcomings, but did anyone actually argue against the idea of developing a keyboard instrument that could play dynamics, or suggest that it was unnecessary?


I'm not one of those more knowledgeable persons, so I don't have an answer to your general question. However, I think it's clear that Bach was well aware of the limitations inherent in a harpsichord and composed his music with that awareness in mind. So, I'd have to say that it wasn't necessary in Bach's keyboard works. Also, it's good to remember that there are alternative ways to handle dynamics when writing for and playing the harpsichord. Since Bach didn't have any problem composing for the harpsichord, I don't have any problem listening to the instrument.


----------



## isorhythm

Fair enough. I have nothing against the harpsichord, and indeed own several Bach harpsichord recordings, but my personal preference is for Bach on the piano and will probably remain so, for the reasons I've given.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> Did anyone in the 18th century actually resist the concept of the fortepiano, and argue that the harpsichord was superior?


Most famously Voltaire, who said that the fortepiano is like a boiler-maker's instrument compared with a harpsichord. (it's in one of his letters)


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> This pianistic approach reminds me of the way some musicians sing Renaissance masses, with different voices taking the centre stage at different times. I'm not saying it's a bad way to play, or an inauthentic way to play. I just want to describe the phenomenon and understand its consequences.
> 
> I'll try to find some examples later on YouTube if I have times


I would also like to get a better understanding of the consequences of this phenomenon, I would certainly be interested in some examples if you get the time.


----------



## tdc

isorhythm said:


> The harpsichord can't do any of this, though a harpsichordist can achieve phrasing with articulation and subtle rubato. The piano can. So why wouldn't we want a keyboard player to be able to shape contrapuntal lines as singers and string and wind players do? *Is Bach's contrapuntal writing for keyboard fundamentally different from his contrapuntal writing for ensembles, in some way that demands a total absence of dynamics? I don't see how it is.*
> 
> The other problem I have with the harpsichord is that the sound itself muddies polyphonic lines. Now, you can say this is subjective, and I guess to some extent it is, but there's one objective fact in my favor:* harpsichordists arpeggiate virtually every chord of more than three notes. This is actually considered proper technique. Why? Because large chords on a harpsichord produce a buzzy CLANG that subsumes individual notes, and no one really disputes this. The sound, in other words, is in some way inherently less clear than a piano's,* where this isn't necessary.


These are some excellent points, and I just don't think we've gotten any clear answers on these yet.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> There are, you know, some very lyrical harpsichord players. This is Egarr playing the Goldbergs.


This is nice, stylistically I find it bears some similarities to the Hill you posted earlier. I think this is a valid approach, but I prefer a little more performer transparency when I listen to Bach. I think more than most composers Bach's music benefits from this - when performers refrain from adding too much personality to the works. I do still like the Egarr though, very listenable.

I feel similarly about Gould. I have started to warm to his playing and I do enjoy listening to what he does, but it doesn't really sound like Bach to me. It sounds great, just not quite like authentic Bach. Maybe part of this is due to the fact that no other performer has ever really played Bach in the same way he does.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> There are, you know, some very lyrical harpsichord players. This is Egarr playing the Goldbergs. Is this the sort of thing you mean?


Youtube recordings vary greatly in sound quality, and this one from Egarr is quite poor compared to the sound on the CD.


----------



## Bradius

I want to hear the music the way Bach wrote it. Besides, I really love harpsichord í ½í¸


----------



## tdc

Scott Ross on Glenn Gould:

"I say he understood nothing of Bach's music! I've listened carefully to his records: he didn't understand. He was very brilliant; I respect him up to a certain point... at least he was a guy with the courage not to do things like other people. All the same, he was wide off the mark, so wide off the mark that you'd need a 747 to bring him back."


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> You haven't annoyed me, no fear!
> 
> I've failed to get my point across to multiple intelligent people here, so clearly the fault is mine. I'll try to be a little clearer....
> 
> I'm not talking about emphasizing one voice over another, but about shaping each voice.
> 
> Having a polyphonic texture in which each voice is equal doesn't mean that every single note in the piece is sounded at the same volume. For example if I have a choir singing a polyphonic piece, the singers will each shape their phrases in a natural, expressive way - most commonly, becoming slightly louder toward the peak of the phrase and then tapering off, though it will vary according to the expressive demands of the line. Same goes for string players. It's very subtle - it's not the kind of audible variation indicated by dynamic markings. It's just perceived by the listener as giving the line shape and coherence. It actually serves to make a polyphonic texture clearer to the listener, as well as making the music more beautiful and more expressive.
> 
> The harpsichord can't do any of this, though a harpsichordist can achieve phrasing with articulation and subtle rubato. The piano can. So why wouldn't we want a keyboard player to be able to shape contrapuntal lines as singers and string and wind players do? Is Bach's contrapuntal writing for keyboard fundamentally different from his contrapuntal writing for ensembles, in some way that demands a total absence of dynamics? I don't see how it is.
> 
> The other problem I have with the harpsichord is that the sound itself muddies polyphonic lines. Now, you can say this is subjective, and I guess to some extent it is, but there's one objective fact in my favor: harpsichordists arpeggiate virtually every chord of more than three notes. This is actually considered proper technique. Why? Because large chords on a harpsichord produce a buzzy CLANG that subsumes individual notes, and no one really disputes this. The sound, in other words, is in some way inherently less clear than a piano's, where this isn't necessary.


We end up with the usual logical problem, which is that advocates for the modern piano project their own romantic ideas into Bach's music. You write about the natural shaping of contrapuntal lines - or rather what you find natural. We have no idea of how contrapuntal lines were shaped at Bach's time, and your idea may be wrong.

Instrument makers during the entire musical history were highly skilled, and they were able to construct very sophisticated instruments (e.g. the organ). They made the instruments according to the need of musicians and composers of their time, and had any need for a keyboard instrument which was "better" to inflect the tone dynamically been present in the renaissance or most of the baroque ages the piano would have been invented long before it actually was invented. The musicians of Bach's time were apparently satisfied with the properties of the harpsichord. I think its brilliant tone and great clarity caused by the many high partials was a primary concern because the music was first and foremost polyphonic.

And the practice of arpeggio on a harpsichord stems from it being a plucked instrument like the harp and lute, where similar kinds of playing is natural. But even if you play a chord without arpeggio on a harpsichord, the sound will be more transparent than on a piano.

Now you may say, that piano playing without dynamic inflection of the tones is boring, and I agree, because the sound of a piano is rather dull indeed. Something must be done to make it interesting, and the romantic composers knew this very well. But I am not adverse to the piano, when it is used within its proper repertoire.

Another problem I have with Bach on piano is the tuning. Equal tuning was not generally used at Bach's time and particularly not by Bach, according to musicologists (it is interesting to know, that equal tuning was "discovered" early in musical history but wasn´t used). But the tuning is a critical quality, and equal tuning changes the character of the music fundamentally as compared to the varieties of mean tone tuning, which were used at Bach's time (Werkmeister, Valotti t.c.).

How Bach's music was performed by himself (as far as musicologists are able to discover) is not a matter of taste, but it is a matter of taste, when one wants it performed in a romantically distorted way.


----------



## premont

tdc said:


> I feel similarly about Gould. I have started to warm to his playing and I do enjoy listening to what he does, but it doesn't really sound like Bach to me. It sounds great, just not quite like authentic Bach. Maybe part of this is due to the fact that no other performer has ever really played Bach in the same way he does.


I think the main problem with Gould is, that he wanted to be different at every cost, and often discarded natural musical solutions and succumbed to strange things like unjustified staccato playing.


----------



## isorhythm

If introducing any dynamic variation into Bach's keyboard music risks "Romantic distortion," it seems that we must run the same risk when performing any of Bach's non-keyboard music, since we don't know exactly what dynamics Bach would have used.

For that matter, why just dynamics? Why aren't choices of phrasing and articulation on a harpsichord equally subject to "Romantic distortion"?

If there is actually something special about the keyboard music that requires an absence of dynamics, please show it to me in the music. No one has tried to do this so far.

If you hear polyphonic lines more clearly on a harpsichord, your ears are different from mine, and there's no arguing about that. I hear them more clearly on a piano.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> If introducing any dynamic variation into Bach's keyboard music risks "Romantic distortion," it seems that we must run the same risk when performing any of Bach's non-keyboard music, since we don't know exactly what dynamics Bach would have used.


This is very true. and I often hear interpretations on modern instruments, which I find romantic distorted, i.e. played in a way, which was not possible on baroque instruments. These problems are first and foremost about dynamic variations and dynamic span.



isorhythm said:


> For that matter, why just dynamics? Why aren't choices of phrasing and articulation on a harpsichord equally subject to "Romantic distortion"?


They are, but not as much. because the piano does not differ as much from the harpsichord in these things. But often one hears articulation on piano, which is unnatural on a harpsichord or even historically unfounded e.g. overarticulated staccato (e.g. Gould) or endless legato (e.g. Kempff).



isorhythm said:


> If there is actually something special about the keyboard music that requires an absence of dynamics, please show it to me in the music. No one has tried to do this so far.


The special thing is, that renaissance and baroque composers for centuries were satisfied with the harpsichord, and that we from that can conclude, that they did not regard dynamic inflection to be a necessary component of interpretation. Maybe they even considered it undesirable. This also applies to organ music, which was closely connected with harpsichord music.


----------



## Mandryka

The harpsichordists use touch and articulation and rubato and texture to shape the music, to draw the listener's attention to a particular phrase, rather than changes in volume. I can assure you that this can create a really convincing illusion of dynamic variation (I'm listening right now to Bob van Asperen play a transcription of the violin chaconne and it's hard for me to believe he can't change the volume as much as a pianist, the illusion is so convincing.)

Anyone reading this thread who hadn't listened to a skilled harpsichordist playing a good instrument stylishly might think that a harpsichord rendition is undynamic and inexpressive. But nothing could be further from the truth!

The reason that early musicians relished the harpsichord was that the instruments were so refined, and the techniques so well developed, that the music could be made to come alive on it.


----------



## isorhythm

premont said:


> This is very true. and I often hear interpretations on modern instruments, which I find romantic distorted, i.e. played in a way, which was not possible on baroque instruments. These problems are first and foremost about dynamic variations and dynamic span.


I was thinking of period string and wind instruments, and voices. If being able to use dynamics is so inherently dangerous that we shouldn't play Bach on the piano, then playing him on any other instrument, or singing him, must be hopeless, no?

In any case I reject the basic premise that the point of HIP is to recreate what Bach would have heard. We can only play and hear the music as the 21st century people we are; the point of HIP is to _inform_ our interpretations in order to get at the music better.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> I was thinking of period string and wind instruments, and voices. If being able to use dynamics is so inherently dangerous that we shouldn't play Bach on the piano, then playing him on any other instrument, or singing him, must be hopeless, no?


Well, we do not know how the musicians of the baroque age used the possibilities of dynamic variation. But we know that harpsichordists could not use it.

I have never said, that pianists shouldn't play Bach, and I understand well why they want to, but many of them do not present the real thing but some kind of adaption for modern ears and pianophiles.



isorhythm said:


> In any case I reject the basic premise that the point of HIP is to recreate what Bach would have heard. We can only play and hear the music as the 21st century people we are; the point of HIP is to _inform_ our interpretations in order to get at the music better.


This is where we essentially differ, and I maintain, that Bach's music is best served with a historically informed approach on period instruments, if one wants to get an idea of, what the composer wants to express.


----------



## premont

An interesting observation is, that we have preserved many examples of music, Bach transcribed from string- or other ensemble to harpsichord (all the concerto arrangements from Vivaldi et alii.) and we have his own violin concertos arranged for harpsichord. 

But we have no examples at all of music he transcribed the other way round, from harpsichord to strings or other melody instruments. 

Is this just a coincidence, or was he satisfied with the expressive qualities of the harpsichord vs. e.g. violin?


----------



## Guest

My pennies just voted piano.


----------



## isorhythm

premont said:


> An interesting observation is, that we have preserved many examples of music, Bach transcribed from string- or other ensemble to harpsichord (all the concerto arrangements from Vivaldi et alii.) and we have his own violin concertos arranged for harpsichord.
> 
> But we have no examples at all of music he transcribed the other way round, from harpsichord to strings or other melody instruments.
> 
> Is this just a coincidence, or was he satisfied with the expressive qualities of the harpsichord vs. e.g. violin?


I'm sure he was satisfied with it. But an interpretation of a piece of music is always an encounter between composer, performer and listener. It is not an attempt to approximate a mechanical reproduction of what Bach might have heard (which in any cased we cannot know).

We can't know what Bach would have thought about his music on the piano. We can only know what we think of it, and evaluate it on its merits as a musical interpretation. Scholarship can certainly help us understand Bach's music better, as performers and listeners, but it can't actually do the work of interpretation by itself.


----------



## wirorg

Piano with no pedalling. Very soft sound and profound interpretation.


----------



## Mandryka

premont said:


> I have never said, that pianists shouldn't play Bach, and I understand well why they want to, but many of them do not present the real thing but some kind of adaption for modern ears and pianophiles.


Here's an example of a pianist (Hill) playing the F minor prelude from WTC1 on modern piano in a way which is informed by ideas about what Bach intended






And here's a pianist (Gulda) with a more pianistic response


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> I'm sure he was satisfied with it. But an interpretation of a piece of music is always an encounter between composer, performer and listener. It is not an attempt to approximate a mechanical reproduction of what Bach might have heard (which in any cased we cannot know).


Yeah, but that makes it sound like a performance is when a musician meets a score and does any old random stuff that he feels like!

The encounter with the composer is mediated by a score. And playing the music is underdetermined by judgements about what the composer meant by the score. And given that Bach was writing for instruments with limited dynamics, he didn't mean what Gulda does with WTC 1 in the example above.

So whatever Gulda's pianistic response to the music is, it is _not_ a performance of J S Bach's WTC1. Hill is playing Bach on the piano, Gulda ain't.

(Ideas for refutation.)


----------



## Mandryka

Removed because it was wrong.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> Yeah, but that makes it sound like a performance is when a musician meets a score and does any old random stuff that he feels like!
> 
> The encounter with the composer is mediated by a score. And playing the music is underdetermined by judgements about what the composer meant by the score. And given that Bach was writing for instruments with limited dynamics, he didn't mean what Gulda does with WTC 1 in the example above.
> 
> So whatever Gulda's pianistic response to the music is, it is _not_ a performance of J S Bach's WTC1. Hill is playing Bach on the piano, Gulda ain't.
> 
> (Ideas for refutation.)


I don't know where you get "any old random stuff." Everyone's interpretation of a piece is going to be different, whether that piece is written in 1740 or 1890 or 2010. Those differences aren't "random stuff." They're interpretation, which we have to evaluate on musical merit.


----------



## isorhythm

Something to think about: When Beethoven played Bach on a fortepiano in the 1780s, he was closer to WTC Book II than we are to Stockhausen's _Mantra_.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> I don't know where you get "any old random stuff." Everyone's interpretation of a piece is going to be different, whether that piece is written in 1740 or 1890 or 2010. Those differences aren't "random stuff." They're interpretation, which we have to evaluate on musical merit.


Oh, I'm sorry, let me refine the way I expressed my thought



> Yeah, but that makes it sound like a performance of a piece of music can be when a musician meets a score and does any old random stuff that he feels like that is caused by the encounter!


An example of "random stuff" we may be able to agree on would be some of John Lewis's WTC, some of Robin Holoway's Gilded Goldbergs. I'm saying that pianistic performances of Bach are in this category.

Of course, musically they may be satisfying in all sorts of ways, that's not my point. My point is that they are not WTC, the Goldbergs etc., though of course they are related to what Bach created in some way yet to be made clear.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> Yeah, but that makes it sound like a performance is when a musician meets a score and does any old random stuff that he feels like!
> 
> The encounter with the composer is mediated by a score. And playing the music is underdetermined by judgements about what the composer meant by the score. And given that Bach was writing for instruments with limited dynamics, he didn't mean what Gulda does with WTC 1 in the example above.
> 
> So whatever Gulda's pianistic response to the music is, it is _not_ a performance of J S Bach's WTC1. Hill is playing Bach on the piano, Gulda ain't.
> 
> (Ideas for refutation.)


It's clear to me that Gulda is playing the F minor prelude. At any rate, I'm not very impressed with either version. Gulda might well be overly pianistic, but I find Hill's slower tempos at various points quite mannered. For an exceptional piano account of the F minor, I suggest Sergei Schepkin on the Ongaku label.


----------



## KenOC

isorhythm said:


> Something to think about: When Beethoven played Bach on a fortepiano in the 1780s, he was closer to WTC Book II than we are to Stockhausen's _Mantra_.


It's interesting also that by the 1780s, neither Beethoven nor anybody else (that I've read of) shed a tear for the poor old harpsichord or gave any indication of wanting it back.


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> It's interesting also that by the 1780s, neither Beethoven nor anybody else (that I've read of) shed a tear for the poor old harpsichord or gave any indication of wanting it back.


Exactly! Apparently Voltaire did. But I can't find anything else, and nothing from any musician. And Voltaire didn't say anything suggesting that what he objected to with early fortepianos was their ability to play dynamics.


----------



## isorhythm

Mandryka said:


> My point is that they are not WTC, the Goldbergs etc., though of course they are related to what Bach created in some way yet to be made clear.


I think this is our basic disagreement: I don't think there is some thing "out there" that "really is" the WTC. There was Bach, the person, with all his ideas and feelings and experiences, who is dead. There is the music he wrote down on paper. There are people who play the music. There are even recording engineers who capture some of those performances on CDs and in digital files. And finally there are listeners who listen. All of these are part of what the WTC "is."


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> I think this is our basic disagreement: I don't think there is some thing "out there" that "really is" the WTC. There was Bach, the person, with all his ideas and feelings and experiences, who is dead. There is the music he wrote down on paper. There are people who play the music. There are even recording engineers who capture some of those performances on CDs and in digital files. All of these things are part of what the WTC "is."


Yes, this is the heart of the matter. And I need some time to think about your process view of musical objects.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> Here's an example of a pianist (Hill) playing the F minor prelude from WTC1 on modern piano in a way which is informed by ideas about what Bach intended
> 
> And here's a pianist (Gulda) with a more pianistic response


Certainly two very different approaches.

No doubt Hill's interpretation is deply felt, but like Don I find Hill's agogics a bit mannered.
Gulda's interpretation is on the other hand easy flowing and pianistic, bordering the superficial. 
BTW I have never been a great fan of Gulda.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> I'm sure he was satisfied with it. But an interpretation of a piece of music is always an encounter between composer, performer and listener. It is not an attempt to approximate a mechanical reproduction of what Bach might have heard (which in any cased we cannot know).


Remember that Bach arranged his violin concertos for harpsichord for his own use. He was the composer and performer at the same time. So he obviously knew how to play expressively on a harpsichord.


----------



## premont

KenOC said:


> It's interesting also that by the 1780s, neither Beethoven nor anybody else (that I've read of) shed a tear for the poor old harpsichord or gave any indication of wanting it back.


What Beethoven thought is irrelevant. He was a victim to changing tastes.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> Exactly! Apparently Voltaire did. But I can't find anything else, and nothing from any musician. And Voltaire didn't say anything suggesting that what he objected to with early fortepianos was their ability to play dynamics.


Why should Voltaire be an authority in these matters?


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> I think this is our basic disagreement: I don't think there is some thing "out there" that "really is" the WTC.


Certainly not- some may even think that the WTC is what they hear in their head when reading the score.

But I think the dispute rather is about whether we want the work performed in a way which is as close as possible to the way Bach himself might have done - we shall of course never know precisely what he did - or if we want the work played in a modernized way, suitable for modern ears, which on the other hand are biased by knowledge of romantic and neoclassical music and others. I maintain that we get closest to Bach's original thoughts by trying to recreate and revive the musical conditions of his time.


----------



## Mandryka

premont said:


> Certainly not- some may even think that the WTC is what they hear in their head when reading the score.
> 
> But I think the *dispute* rather is about *whether we want* the work performed in a way which is as close as possible to the way Bach himself might have done - we shall of course never know precisely what he did - or if we want the work played in a modernized way, suitable for modern ears, which on the other hand are biased by knowledge of romantic and neoclassical music and others. I maintain that we get closest to Bach's original thoughts by trying to recreate and revive the musical conditions of his time.


How can there be a dispute about what "we" want? And who is "we"? What you want is not what isorhythm wants, end of. There can't be a dispute about it.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> How can there be a dispute about what "we" want? And who is "we"? What you want is not what isorhythm wants, end of. There can't be a dispute about it.




I figured it in the broadest sense, but yes, I should have written "one" instead of "we". The point is precisely, that there is no common denominator for what isorhythm wants, and what I want.


----------



## tdc

Some interesting points on both sides here. As far as those pieces posted by Mandryka, I thought the Hill certainly sounded better than the Gulda, but yes Hill has some tempo issues. It is very easy to fall into that with Bach's music because of the remarkable beauty of certain passages, it becomes tempting to prolong them and stretch them out in an attempt to highlight them, (there are even certain instances where I am not against this) but generally I think it results in a weakening effect on the piece as a whole.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> Some interesting points on both sides here. As far as those pieces posted by Mandryka, I thought the Hill certainly sounded better than the Gulda, but yes Hill has some tempo issues. It is very easy to fall into that with Bach's music because of the remarkable beauty of certain passages, it becomes tempting to prolong them and stretch them out in an attempt to highlight them, (there are even certain instances where I am not against this) but generally I think it results in a weakening effect on the piece as a whole.


My point in posting Hill and Gulda was not really about who prefers which. It was to show that it is possible to play modem piano in a way which is informed, which isn't "inflated" with pianistic practices.


----------



## isorhythm

I'm really, really surprised by the apparent consensus about those two recordings. Gulda's counterpoint is crystal clear. Hill's is mush. His treatment of the middle voices is quintessentially "pianistic," in a bad way. What about it is historically informed, all the agogics? Pass.


----------



## Mandryka

isorhythm said:


> . Hill's is mush. His treatment of the middle voices is quintessentially "pianistic," in a bad way.


That's interesting, maybe you could spell out a bit more what you're hearing.



isorhythm said:


> What about it is historically informed, all the agogics? .


Yes, and the ornamentation and, I would have said, the counterpoint - that's why I was curious about what you hear about the voicing.


----------



## premont

isorhythm said:


> I'm really, really surprised by the apparent consensus about those two recordings. Gulda's counterpoint is crystal clear. Hill's is mush. His treatment of the middle voices is quintessentially "pianistic," in a bad way. What about it is historically informed, all the agogics? Pass.


I think there is rather much expressive interplay between the parts in Hill's version. Like the way a small group of instrumentalists might do. He makes the parts relate to each other, creating a sense of polyphonic conversation.

Gulda on the other hand is mechanical and rightout boring, even if one objectively maybe hears the parts clearer. And it feels as if the parts are individuals without mutual interest, just speaking to themselves.


----------



## isorhythm

Gulda's Bach is extremely dry. That's his schtick. I wouldn't choose it most of the time. But for purposes of this conversation, I'm expressing no opinion about the interpretation overall. I'm just very surprised to see both of you praising an interpreter who does all KINDS of un-Baroque, pianistic things that you could never do on a harpsichord - using dynamics very obviously to stress the "melody," using pedal (!) to blur the middle voices into background harmony - over one that doesn't do these things, and is in fact less "pianistic" by any objective measure. And especially now dismissing clarity of the polyphonic lines, which a couple pages ago was paramount, as something secondary.

Honestly, "authentic" ornamentation and agogic accents aside, Hill's almost like a Chopin interpretation - a singing line on top of accompanying figures, with a softer bass line.


----------



## premont

My comments about Hill was to be seen in relation to my comments about Gulda. I do not consider any of them ideal. It is obvious, that Hill's dynamic ventures can not be realized on a harpsichord. They can in a smaller scale be done on a clavichord, which I find more idiomatic for this preludium. But I do not like his tendency to let the right hand take the lead, An as I wrote before, I even find his agogic slowing down at the end of phrases mannered (exaggerated). 

But I do not doubt a second, that Bach would have liked Hill more than Gulda. Hill's version is articulated in more detail than Gulda's, and there is much more inner life in Hill's playing than in Gulda's, because Hill displays an idea of, how these parts relate to each other, while Gulda just plays them like a sewing-machine.


----------



## isorhythm

I suspect you are right that Bach would have liked Hill's better. Gulda is playing Bach in a "modernist" way that wouldn't have made sense to anyone before the 20th century. But I don't think the difference has anything to do with Gulda being more pianistic - in fact, I think the opposite is true - and I don't think the comparison between the two in any way supports the notion that Bach suffers when played on the piano.


----------



## premont

I did not write, that Gulda is more pianistic, and like you I find Hill the most pianistic among these two i.e. the one who uses the potential of dynamic variation of the piano the most. But the inner life of Hill's playing originates, as I wrote, from his part playing - first and foremost from the way the parts are displayed agogically in relation to each other. And this can perfectly be done on a harpsichord, which also has the advantage of more distinct and brillant tone. So there is no reason to play this præludium on piano, unless you want to use the dynamic potential, which by definition is inauthentic. On the contrary a harpsichord urges you to articulate in more detailled way, and this gives moreover the music more life (authentic life - I suspect).


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> My point in posting Hill and Gulda was not really about who prefers which. It was to show that it is possible to play modem piano in a way which is informed, which isn't "inflated" with pianistic practices.


Yet a preference is largely implied by this statement. My statement wasn't so much about preference as it was about pointing out a trait in Hill's performance valid in the context of this discussion. As you may have noticed it is not even immediately obvious to others that what you were attempting to show was there. The contrapuntal lines are one important element of Bach performance but there are others as well, such as tempo. For this reason I feel that Schiff's recent recording of the WTC is an informed piano approach and Kenneth Gilbert has an informed approach on the harpsichord due to the fact that they play with a certain clarity of the lines, yet retain a stricter sense of tempo and an element of 'performer transparency'. Having said that I do feel at times it can be difficult to separate what a person feels is 'informed' and what is actually a preference.


----------



## Bulldog

I just listened to Hill and Gulda again with a lot more concentration that I had previously. Hill's is easily the more thoughtful and interesting interpretation; still, those slow-downs greatly call attention to themselves. With Gulda, I'm actually tapping my feet to this relatively bleak music; on the other hand, although Gulda's counterpoint is more apparent than Hill's, it has little impact because Gulda doesn't dig into the music - he glides, and I tap my feet.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> Yet a preference is largely implied by this statement. My statement wasn't so much about preference as it was about pointing out a trait in Hill's performance valid in the context of this discussion. As you may have noticed it is not even immediately obvious to others that what you were attempting to show was there. The contrapuntal lines are one important element of Bach performance but there are others as well, such as tempo. For this reason I feel that Schiff's recent recording of the WTC is an informed piano approach and Kenneth Gilbert has an informed approach on the harpsichord due to the fact that they play with a certain clarity of the lines, yet retain a stricter sense of tempo and an element of 'performer transparency'. Having said that I do feel at times it can be difficult to separate what a person feels is 'informed' and what is actually a preference.


Yes, I couldn't resist using "inflates", which was premont's glorious word I think. I probably should have used a more neutral word.

I posted Hill because I thought he uses rhythm, tempo, touch and articulation to draw the listener's attention to passages, rather than dynamic variation. And as far as I understand (from reading Frescobaldi, Francois Couperin) this is the sort of thing that they did in the 17th century.

I would need to listen to Schiff and Gilbert again to see if you're right. I don't know if you're right to suggest that a stricter sense of temp is informed - I don't think you're right but I'm not sure. I need to think about performer transparency.


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> I just listened to Hill and Gulda again with a lot more concentration that I had previously. Hill's is easily the more thoughtful and interesting interpretation; still, those slow-downs greatly call attention to themselves. With Gulda, I'm actually tapping my feet to this relatively bleak music; on the other hand, although Gulda's counterpoint is more apparent than Hill's, it has little impact because Gulda doesn't dig into the music - he glides, and I tap my feet.


Whether slowing down and speeding up "call attention to themselves" , rather than call attention to a musical phrase, probably depends on what you're used to.

I think there's a conception of playing counterpoint which is something like

1. Make all the voices audible
2. Occasionally grab a tune in an inner voice and stress it

This is probably what Gulda thinks it is to play counterpoint.

Hill's idea has more to do with setting voices in dialogue/ opposition. I like comment premont made about Hill treating the music like an instrumental ensemble.

I have never read anything about how they played counterpoint in the 17th century as far as I recall.


----------



## Mandryka

I just want to mention something which we've lost sight of. Expressive techniques in early music sometimes function to create the illusion of dynamic variation. I know there is no dynamic variation _in fact_, but a good harpsichord and skilled harpsichordist can make the listener think there is. Now with a modern piano there is no need for this type of trompe l'oeil, and maybe there is a way to be informed, use a modern instrument, and use dynamic variation.

I'll try and find an example on youtube later -- I have to go out to work now.

(Ideas for refutation)


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> I posted Hill because I thought he uses rhythm, tempo, touch and articulation to draw the listener's attention to passages, rather than dynamic variation. And as far as I understand (from reading Frescobaldi, Francois Couperin) this is the sort of thing that they did in the 17th century.
> 
> I would need to listen to Schiff and Gilbert again to see if you're right. I don't know if you're right to suggest that a stricter sense of temp is informed - I don't think you're right but I'm not sure. I need to think about performer transparency.


The sources talks about tempo variations being part of good performance, but they do not tell us how much the tempo was "allowed" to change. It is implicit, that this depends upon the discretion (good taste) of the performer and upon what he wants to express. So we can not readily say, that Hill's tempo variations are inauthentic. And we only have our own taste to judge them by.

Gustav Leonhardt talks in an interview about dynamic variations (in the touch) on a harpsichord. He taught his pupils how to do them. But I think they aren't that real and first and foremost exist in the performers mind, helping him to find a natural articulation and to apply the agogic accents.

You are right that Hill "uses rhythm, tempo, touch and articulation to draw the listener's attention to passages, rather than dynamic variation", but he also uses dynamic means, and - as Isorhythm pointed out - in an "unbaroque" way by stressing the upper part(s) sonically. Virginia Black (partitas) or Wolfgang Rübsam maybe would illustrate your point better.


----------



## Blancrocher

Bulldog said:


> I just listened to Hill and Gulda again with a lot more concentration that I had previously. Hill's is easily the more thoughtful and interesting interpretation; still, those slow-downs greatly call attention to themselves. With Gulda, I'm actually tapping my feet to this relatively bleak music; on the other hand, although Gulda's counterpoint is more apparent than Hill's, it has little impact because Gulda doesn't dig into the music - he glides, and I tap my feet.


As an aside, it's interesting to compare Gulda's light approach in this prelude (F minor, bk 1) with Gould's, which is by far the slowest I've heard. It's a willfully idiosyncratic performance, but I think it's really lovely. Also btw, Gulda's handling of the fugue presents another interesting contrast.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> I just want to mention something which we've lost sight of. Expressive techniques in early music sometimes function to create the illusion of dynamic variation. I know there is no dynamic variation _in fact_, but a good harpsichord and skilled harpsichordist can make the listener think there is.


This is very much the point of expressive harpsichord playing.



Mandryka said:


> Now with a modern piano there is no need for this type of trompe l'oeil, and maybe there is a way to be informed, use a modern instrument, and use dynamic variation.


But according to your first conclusion this_ trompe l'oreille _is completely intended, and accordingly "inauthentic" variations of dynamics may be undesirable. I am quite sure -as I wrote above - that the piano would have been invented much earlier, if composers and musicians had felt any need for it.


----------



## Mandryka

premont said:


> But according to your first conclusion this_ trompe l'oreille _is completely intended, and accordingly "inauthentic" variations of dynamics may be undesirable.


Yes it was an incoherent idea, I see that now.



premont said:


> I am quite sure -as I wrote above - that the piano would have been invented much earlier, if composers and musicians had felt any need for it.


It's an interesting thought because it makes it sound as though gallant style led to the need for the pianoforte. Which may well be true.


----------



## hpowders

Animal the Drummer said:


> No, I think it's purely a matter of each listener's personal preference. Nor should those who prefer the harpsichord run away with the idea that Bach would necessarily have done so. He was enough of an enthusiast for early pianos to act as a demonstrator for them.


This is true. I never try to aggressively force my point of view down peoples' throats. We can only guess at what Bach himself may have preferred.


----------



## John Kiunke

I prefer clavichord above both, but I'll have to say harpsichord


----------



## hpowders

Animal the Drummer said:


> No, I think it's purely a matter of each listener's personal preference. Nor should those who prefer the harpsichord run away with the idea that Bach would necessarily have done so. He was enough of an enthusiast for early pianos to act as a demonstrator for them.


Yes, of course. I never try to "shove down the throat" my preference for Bach on harpsichord. Bach on piano is better than no Bach at all.


----------



## seven four

shangoyal said:


> I personally prefer the harpsichord very strongly. I am not unable to listen to piano recordings, but the harpsichord is my clear favourite.


same here, Harpsichord.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Way prefer piano. The sound of it is so much more pleasing to me. The beauty of Bach's music, as we know, is that it wasn't written in a way confining it to the harpsichord.


----------



## seven four

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Way prefer piano. The sound of it is so much more pleasing to me. The beauty of Bach's music, as we know, is that it wasn't written in a way confining it to the harpsichord.


This is so true.


----------



## Vsyevolod

I've heard many recordings of harpsichord that were grating on my ears. A well recorded harpsichord OTOH is a thing of wondrous beauty. One example that comes to mind is the Smithsonian recording done by James Weaver, especially the Partitas for solo clavier.

My hands down favourite recording of the Art of the Fugue is my vinyl copy with Charles Krigbaum on the organ. A 4 LP(!) set recorded on the Mark Levinson (of audio hardware fame) label. 45 RPM even...

Digital keyboard manufacturers never seem to put much effort into recreating a convincing harpsichord sound. Kurzweil has finally come close with their Forte series. Even contains a well recorded 'lute stop' version.

Stephen




.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

The piano's dynamics allow me to hear each voice separately much easier than the harpsichord. But above all, the clavichord! So gentle, and so beautiful.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I cannot imagine anything more beautiful than these performances by Perahia and ASMF.









Yes, even the Brandenburgh transcriptions on the piano sound wonderful. If you love the sound of piano and the performer is Perahia, who cares if it's authentic or not.


----------



## Bulldog

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I cannot imagine anything more beautiful than these performances by Perahia and ASMF.
> 
> View attachment 84400
> 
> 
> Yes, even the Brandenburgh transcriptions on the piano sound wonderful. If you love the sound of piano and the performer is Perahia, who cares if it's authentic or not.


I also love the piano but prefer Bach on harpsichord. As for Perahia, there are quite a few pianists I enjoy more for Bach's keyboard works. I just can't understand why Perahia/Bach has many fans; to me, it's Perahia playing Perahia.


----------



## Dan Ante

I go for Piano every time even if I am a big fan of HIP performances.


----------



## bestellen

I really enjoy both..


----------



## dieter

Both are fine. The musician hammering the keyboards is the key.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Bulldog said:


> I also love the piano but prefer Bach on harpsichord. As for Perahia, there are quite a few pianists I enjoy more for Bach's keyboard works. I just can't understand why Perahia/Bach has many fans; to me, it's Perahia playing Perahia.


How can Perahia be playing Perahia when he's playing the music Bach wrote? 

Of course Perahia is going to add his strong personality into the performance. That's what all great musicians do. Bach's music is so abstract that it lends itself to many different interpretations. I love Perahia's Bach. His Goldbergs are my favorite, even more so than Gould's.


----------



## Bulldog

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> How can Perahia be playing Perahia when he's playing the music Bach wrote?
> 
> Of course Perahia is going to add his strong personality into the performance.


We will just have to disagree on this one; I don't hear a strong personality.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Bulldog said:


> We will just have to disagree on this one; I don't hear a strong personality.


Agree to disagree. We are really spoiled by the plethora of great artists to cater to different tastes.


----------



## chesapeake bay

dieter said:


> Both are fine. The musician hammering the keyboards is the key.


you can't hammer a harpsichord!


----------



## nightscape

I have no issue with harpsichord in Bach's ensemble music like Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, his keyboard concertos, etc, I just can't really manage it in solo music, like Goldberg Variations.


----------



## dieter

chesapeake bay said:


> you can't hammer a harpsichord!


Maybe yes, maybe no.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

chesapeake bay said:


> you can't hammer a harpsichord!


Depends on the individual harpsichord. I'll bet you could hammer some of the monsters Wanda Landowska used to play.


----------



## Marinera

I can't vote on this one. I prefer his concertos on harpsichord, but for something like partitas or suites for solo instrument - piano wins.


----------



## Mozartmusic1998

Personally, I think you should always perform music on the instrument it was written for, be that a fortepiano, harsoichord, clavichord, organ etc etc. I find that the music and style always flows natural with historical performances


----------



## premont

Mozartmusic1998 said:


> Personally, I think you should always perform music on the instrument it was written for, be that a fortepiano, harsoichord, clavichord, organ etc etc. I find that the music and style always flows natural with historical performances


Very well put, and I agree completely.

To me the question remains, whether Bach on modern piano is better than no performance at all?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Mozartmusic1998 said:


> Personally, I think you should always perform music on the instrument it was written for, be that a fortepiano, harsoichord, clavichord, organ etc etc. I find that the music and style always flows natural with historical performances


I don't agree, and the number of arrangements Bach himself made of his own and other composers' music (not to mention his own enthusiasm for early pianos) strongly suggests he wouldn't have agreed either.


----------



## premont

Animal the Drummer said:


> I don't agree, and the number of arrangements Bach himself made of his own and other composers' music (not to mention his own enthusiasm for early pianos) strongly suggests he wouldn't have agreed either.


When Bach arranged music from one instrument to another, he changed the notes making the music idiomatic for the "new" instrument (the exception being harpsichord/organ) - two rather similar instruments from this point of view. When his Claviermusik to day is played on piano, the notes are most often played unchanged. This makes a huge difference. And how he would have arranged his harpsichord music for piano - if he would have done it at all - we do not know.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I have no issue with any of that but, with respect, none of it makes even the beginning of a case against playing Bach's keyboard music on the piano.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I don't like the sound of the harpsichord and I couldn't care less that Bach wrote the Goldberg (or any other composition) for it. I could never listen to a harpsichord version given the number of outstanding piano versions available. To my ears, Bach's music sounds wonderful played on the piano even if there was (in some cases very trivial) transcription involved.


----------



## Bulldog

premont said:


> To me the question remains, whether Bach on modern piano is better than no performance at all?


I'm looking forward to a Bach solo harpsichord recital at the local college. I get to my seat on time to have the performer tell the audience that the harpsichord never arrived, so the concert is cancelled. OR, the performer tells us that he has a very fine piano available and that he will play that piano (audience members not finding this acceptable are given their money back). I stay in my seat; the harpsichord is better but piano is the next best thing.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Marinera said:


> I can't vote on this one. I prefer his concertos on harpsichord, but for something like partitas or suites for solo instrument - piano wins.


I agree with you on this.


----------



## candi

Spot on! Harpsichord all day and night.


----------



## JSBach85

I only listen to Bach's works in *Harpsichord* without any question. Those Bach keyboard works were composed specifically for this instrument. The harpsichord is at its best when performing repertoire specifically designed for it, as this is the case of The Well Tempered Clavier and Goldberg Variations, where I can appreciate the elaborated Bach counterpoint and enjoy the dynamics. The more authentic the harpsichord is, the more enjoyable experience will be for me.

That no means that I do not like piano, yes I do, but where piano must be: in Romantic Era and preferably with pianos from 19th century. I also like the fortepiano for W.A. Mozart works.

Regarding Johann Sebastian Bach, I only listen to recordings using harpsichord, both for orchestral music and for keyboard (excluding organ) works. This is my latest recording purchased, I am currently listening to it:


----------



## Rogerx

Piano, no doubt whatsoever.


----------



## ldiat

i vote harpsichord cool!


----------



## premont

chesapeake bay said:


> you can't hammer a harpsichord!


Fortunately not.


----------



## Mandryka

JSBach85 said:


> I only listen to Bach's works in *Harpsichord* without any question. Those Bach keyboard works were composed specifically for this instrument.


This raises an interesting question. What music did Bach specifically compose for harpsichord?

It's sometimes said that baroque keyboards -- organs, clavichords, harpsichords (all with and without pedals) shared a common repertoire, though I must say I've never seen the evidence for this idea. But granted that _generally _harpsichords, organs and clavichords and maybe, in the case of Scarlatti, pianos, shared music, it may be that Bach _specifically _was composing instrument specific music, and in particular, harpsichord specific music.

I've been listening to a recording of manualiter chorales from CU 3 played on harpsichord. I've heard the French Suites and the inventions played on a harpsichord. I've heard the gamba sonatas played with an organ. I've heard The Goldberg Variations and the 6th partita played on a clavichord. And I've heard the ricercae a 3, the ricercar a 6 and some of the canons from Opfer on a fortepiano. I've heard WTC and AoF on clavichord and organ and, on the case of AoF at least, fortepiano.

Are these things mistakes? Like trying to play a Froberger prelude on a bagpipe?


----------



## Dan Ante

chesapeake bay said:


> you can't hammer a harpsichord!


You can do other things with it, as in the same way Top Gear deals with Caravans and Camper Vans


----------



## caters

I listen to it both ways but I prefer the modern tuning over baroque tuning.


----------



## Dan Ante

caters said:


> I listen to it both ways but I prefer the modern tuning over baroque tuning.


Thats interesting can I ask why.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

The Piano - though I prefer the Fortepiano when available. They are far more satisfying to me as a listener at the hands of an artist who understands the music.

I can listen to the Harpsichord from time to time and enjoy it but it depends on the performer, the recording and my mood when listening. On a poor (subjectively) recording or performance it can often sound irritating to the point where I tune out.

I’m thankful to have the option but I can say that 99% of the time I will choose Piano or Fortepiano.


----------



## classfolkphile

I also enjoy Bach on both the harpsichord and piano. In common with several other posters here, I usually prefer the Italian Concerto, chamber music (violin and keyboard, viola da gamba and keyboard sonatas), and concertos on harpsichord and the other solo works on piano.


----------



## hpowders

JSBach85 said:


> I only listen to Bach's works in *Harpsichord* without any question. Those Bach keyboard works were composed specifically for this instrument. The harpsichord is at its best when performing repertoire specifically designed for it, as this is the case of The Well Tempered Clavier and Goldberg Variations, where I can appreciate the elaborated Bach counterpoint and enjoy the dynamics. The more authentic the harpsichord is, the more enjoyable experience will be for me.
> 
> That no means that I do not like piano, yes I do, but where piano must be: in Romantic Era and preferably with pianos from 19th century. I also like the fortepiano for W.A. Mozart works.
> 
> Regarding Johann Sebastian Bach, I only listen to recordings using harpsichord, both for orchestral music and for keyboard (excluding organ) works. This is my latest recording purchased, I am currently listening to it:


I completely agree. Bach wrote the WTC for harpsichord and it shows. The piano simply smudges all those runs and counterpoint. And there is nothing to compare with the glory of a Bach keyboard trill on harpsichord. The piano isn't even in the running. (Pardon the pun!)

A Bach fugue on harpsichord: simply glorious!

A Bach fugue on piano : simply an academic exercise.

Surprising on a classical music forum that so many posters cannot hear this. Shocking, actually.


----------



## tortkis

I voted for piano some time ago, but I've changed my mind. Both are good. I've been listening to Robert Levin's The Well-Tempered Clavier played on harpsichord, clavichord, organ and fortepiano. Everything sounds right.


----------



## Guest

Within this rather wide range of eligible instruments, some preludes or fugues, however, clearly lend themselves to a particular type of instrument. The fugues Book 1 C# minor, Book 1 Bb minor, or Book 2 E major, e.g., are typical for organ type ricercare "in stylo antico". Book 1 prelude Eb minor, with its right hand arpeggios, or Book 1 Prelude e minor, on the other hand, are more suitable for a harpsichord and its difficult to perform them convincingly on an organ. Generally it can be said that the harpsichord is the most natural instrument to perform all preludes and fugues, as it is suitable for all kinds of styles and tempos, whereby the weakness of it may be that the above mentioned ricercare require to sustain longer notes sufficiently, a task which is not performed by all harpsichords equally successful. From a today's perspective, the grand piano has taken over the harpsichord's holistic role, and there is no doubt that a high quality piano, such as Steinway, Bösendorfer or Fazioli, is up to the task.

http://www.bachwelltemperedclavier.org/which-keyboard-to-use.html


----------



## caters

Well, for example, if the Canon in D is played with Baroque tuning, it is in D major as written. But to my ears which are used to modern tuning, it sounds like it is in C# major, not D major as written. Likewise C# major in baroque tuning sounds like C major and so on.

If I was playing Mozart's K 545 on a baroque tuned harpsichord for example, I would think it was in B major just from the sound and the only thing that would make me think it was in C major is the sheet music itself(and yes, I have listened to Mozart played on a harpsichord, it sounds way out of key to me). Whereas on a modern tuned piano, if I closed my eyes and felt where C was and started playing, I would right away know it was in C major.


----------



## Marinera

tortkis said:


> I voted for piano some time ago, but I've changed my mind. Both are good. I've been listening to Robert Levin's The Well-Tempered Clavier played on harpsichord, clavichord, organ and fortepiano. Everything sounds right.


Same here. I agree, I also acquired a taste for solo works played on harpsichord. Bach played on harpsichord and on piano are two different beasts though, both have a place in my listening - I cannot pick one over the other


----------



## hpowders

Marinera said:


> Same here. I agree, I also acquired a taste for solo works played on harpsichord. Bach played on harpsichord and on piano are two different beasts though, both have a place in my listening - I cannot pick one over the other


There are times I listen to Bach on piano, but I usually quickly scamper back to the harpsichord, where Bach genuinely lives.


----------



## tortkis

Marinera said:


> Same here. I agree, I also acquired a taste for solo works played on harpsichord. Bach played on harpsichord and on piano are two different beasts though, both have a place in my listening - I cannot pick one over the other


I've come to love harpsichord, thanks to wonderful HIP performers using period instruments with elegant sounds. I still like Bach played on piano too, maybe because of familiarity and also its rich and complex sound, even the slight muddiness.


----------



## Mandryka

.....................


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

I seem to recall the late author, Douglas Adams, writing a newspaper article during which he was listening to Bach as a MIDI file on his laptop (this would've been back in the early 1990s, I guess). Despite the inadequacy of the format, and the tinny sound, Adams was struck by the fact that Bach's music sounded wonderful no matter which "instruments" were playing it.


----------



## classfolkphile

hpowders said:


> I completely agree. Bach wrote the WTC for harpsichord and it shows. The piano simply smudges all those runs and counterpoint. And there is nothing to compare with the glory of a Bach keyboard trill on harpsichord. The piano isn't even in the running. (Pardon the pun!)
> 
> A Bach fugue on harpsichord: simply glorious!
> 
> A Bach fugue on piano : simply an academic exercise.
> 
> Surprising on a classical music forum that so many posters cannot hear this. Shocking, actually.


I don't yet know if I'd go that far. I have a few versions of The Art of the Fugue on piano and a couple on harpsichord. However up until now I'd not found a keyboard recording that I like as much as I like the chamber versions I have. But because of the above statement and others like it, I've sampled several other harpsichord versions of the work and have found two that I so far like more than the other keyboard recordings I've heard: Van Asperen's and Egarr's. The virtues of these latter are that they're slower than the other harpsichord examples I've heard and illuminate the lines much better while retaining the clarity of the instrument. They - and slower versions of the Goldberg Variations (Koopman, Van Asperen, Egarr, Rubsam) - are absent the chattering clatter that fast versions of multiple Bach works usually have on harpsichord.


----------



## Mandryka

If you like Asperen and Egarr, maybe try to hear Frederic Haas’s new recording of Bk 2. And Leonhardt too, who was a contemporary of Asperen and presents the music in a really contrasting way. Different philosophies I suspect. 

I think that there was a post war idea in music, that you should push the music forward as much as possible, that slowing down and revealing depth of feeling is inappropriate romanticism. People thought of baroque music as especially emotionally limited -- Baroque music was considered really about celebration and joy and energy. It comes with a whighish view of music history which basically sees an evolution in sophistication of expression which reached its peak somewhere in the 19th century - and then declined. I blame Toscanini for much of this.


----------



## Larkenfield

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I seem to recall the late author, Douglas Adams, writing a newspaper article during which he was listening to Bach as a MIDI file on his laptop (this would've been back in the early 1990s, I guess). Despite the inadequacy of the format, and the tinny sound, Adams was struck by the fact that Bach's music sounded wonderful no matter which "instruments" were playing it.


Bravo for saying this. Successful and unsuccessful performances can be found on both instruments, and as progressive as Bach was - open to innovations, improvements and change - I, too, doubt that it would have mattered to him what keyboard instrument was used, _as long as it was pleasing in sound_, and as long what he had written was being played in an intelligent and articulate manner... I can fault some of the contemporary harpsichordists for the lousy choice of their ricketty clattering instruments, and fault the pianists for their sometimes too percussive, galloping and aggressive approach. But the right harpsichord recorded with the right miking that's not too close, or a pianist who has the ability to phrase and articulate the lines, can both be a delight, and this should be mentioned more often rather than viewing the harpsichord as the only correct choice of instrument, especially since the harpsichord long ago lost overall favor with the general public to the piano... It's too bad, IMO, that more current harpsichordists do not have the same understanding of the instrument as Landowska did. She had her own instrument built with a marvelous sound instead of playing on a clap-trap of an inferior historic instrument and then expecting the public to lump it because the ricketty sound and self-conscious interpretations were supposedly authentic. There are no 300-year-old people around who heard Bach play to verify whether this is true or not. All that's known is that Bach used whatever instruments were available to him at the time but not that he would have been opposed to the use of the piano had he known of its existence in its present state of development. I strongly doubt that he would have opposed it and that he would have much preferred to have choice, and that the performer have choice.


----------



## premont

Larkenfield said:


> ... It's too bad, IMO, that more current harpsichordists do not have the same understanding of the instrument as Landowska did. She had her own instrument built with a marvelous sound instead of playing on a clap-trap of an inferior historic instrument and then expecting the public to lump it because the ricketty sound and self-conscious interpretations are supposedly authentic.


Strange that you in a discussion about piano versus harpsichord fall precisely between two stools and mention Landowska. Least of all she played a genuine harpsichord, but rather a so called revival harpsichord (constructed in the 1900th century and much based upon piano construction), which indeed is a plucked piano (freely quoted from Mandryka). Thurston Dart called these instruments pianochords.


----------



## classfolkphile

Mandryka said:


> If you like Asperen and Egarr, maybe try to hear Frederic Haas's new recording of Bk 2. And Leonhardt too, who was a contemporary of Asperen and presents the music in a really contrasting way. Different philosophies I suspect.


Thank you, Mandryka, I will.


----------



## Larkenfield

This is another questionable poll that leaves off an important third alternative: both! It's not just an either/or world, and not everyone is going to fit in one box to the exclusion of the other when both good and bad Bach performances can be found on each instrument... It can be a dramatically different experience with each because with the harpsichord the string is plucked, and with the piano the string is struck. With the clavichord, unlike in a piano action, the tangent does not rebound from the string; rather, it stays in contact with the string as long as the key is held, acting as both the nut and as the initiator of sound. Each offers different possibilities and some performers are usually drawn to one instrument more than the other. But a keyboardist such as Friedrich Gulda could play Bach very well on different instruments:


----------



## Gallus

hpowders said:


> I completely agree. *Bach wrote the WTC for harpsichord and it shows.* The piano simply smudges all those runs and counterpoint. And there is nothing to compare with the glory of a Bach keyboard trill on harpsichord. The piano isn't even in the running. (Pardon the pun!)
> 
> A Bach fugue on harpsichord: simply glorious!
> 
> A Bach fugue on piano : simply an academic exercise.
> 
> Surprising on a classical music forum that so many posters cannot hear this. Shocking, actually.


Then you should show this evidence to musicologists, as it would revolutionise Bach studies.

Not only was Bach's favourite keyboard instrument not the harpsichord but the *clavichord*, he obviously didn't compose the WTC as a whole for any single instrument since many of the preludes and fugues were compiled from previous compositions he had written, including preludes and fugues for organ. In fact it never would have occurred to Bach that anyone would actually sit down and play through all forty-eight pieces as part of a single performance on a single keyboard to be recorded for posterity anyway, since they were collated in manuscript as a training exercise for keyboardists.

Personally, I don't think the composer who enjoyed playing the _violin sonatas and partitas on the clavichord_ for his amusement would really have been outraged at being unable to hear the idiomatic effects of the harpsichord in the WTC.


----------



## Mandryka

Some people think that the ricarcar a 3 is a piano piece, but it seems to me to just not work on piano very well. Here's one






He improvised a 3 part ricercar on a a piano, but as far as I know there's nothing to suggest that the version we have is pianistic, on the contrary.

Contrast a harpsichord performance at the start here after a flute plays the theme


----------



## Larkenfield

On the basis of the sound quality of each instrument alone, in the above comparison, the harpsichord sounds far better and more convincing... But what good is there hearing a performance on a poor quality fortepiano as if it could have ever possibly sounded that bad in Bach's day and compete with this better sounding harpsichord? It makes the composer out to be a fool that he could have ever possibly put up with such a terrible sounding fortepiano regardless of the music it played. They couldn't have all sounded this bad.

Instruments are designed to an inspiration to the composer and listeners. There must be an essentially pleasing sound to them, either the harpsichord or fortepiano, for there to be any possibility of a comparison or any satisfaction in a performance. But listeners will usually not have that distinction or consideration in mind. They start from the finished performance without assessing the basic sound quality of each instrument to begin with, and naturally, a poor sounding instrument will never be convincing, especially a harsh sounding fortepiano that is such a turn-off.

The only true comparison is made on two equal instruments that are pleasing in sound, which is not the case here. It's no good putting the cart of performance before the horse of sound quality... and yet it's done all the time to say that one instrument is better and more convincing or more appropriate than the other for playing Bach or anyone else from the Baroque period.

I'm convinced that a great sounding instrument can do wonders for Baroque or music from any era regardless of what it was originally played on. Not Bach, but here's another comparison, and I can't help noticing the irritability of the harpsichord's sound in playing this beautiful sonata when compared to the sound of the pianoforte, at least in this instance:


----------



## Guest

I voted harpsichord because of Richard Egarr - solo work, Corelli violin sonatas with Andrew Manze, and his work with the Academy of Ancient Music... Some samples...


----------



## Mandryka

Egarr's new Byrd CD seems to me very interesting indeed -- that Library of Congress video gives a flavour of what he does. I have tickets to hear him play some Bach solo music, partitas I think, either in November or December I can't remember which, in London.


----------



## Guest

This is wonderful thread. Here, all lined up in a row, a compilation of all of the members of this board who feel justified in declaring a performance style that they don't enjoy to be illegitimate! It's like an ignore list that writes itself!


----------



## premont

Baron Scarpia said:


> This is wonderful thread. Here, all lined up in a row, a compilation of all of the members of this board who feel justified in declaring a performance style that they don't enjoy to be illegitimate! It's like an ignore list that writes itself!


What is legitimate? What the composer probably intended or what one enjoys the most regardless of the composers intentions? Or both?


----------



## premont

Larkenfield said:


> I'm convinced that a great sounding instrument can do wonders for Baroque or music from any era regardless of what it was originally played on.


I really like Bach played on a great sounding accordion. :devil:
If Bach had lived to hear it, he would have loved it.


----------



## Guest

premont said:


> What is legitimate? What the composer probably intended or what one enjoys the most regardless of the composers intentions? Or both?


The essence of Bach's music is counterpoint. He couldn't prevent himself from writing fugues even for an unaccompanied violin. Whatever illuminates Bach's counterpoint is legitimate, in my view. I find skillful performers on piano are at no disadvantage bringing out Bach's counterpoint. If I were to limit myself to recordings on harpsichord, I would simply never listen to Bach keyboard music at all.


----------



## Mandryka

Baron Scarpia said:


> The essence of Bach's music is counterpoint. He couldn't prevent himself from writing fugues even for an unaccompanied violin. Whatever illuminates Bach's counterpoint is legitimate, in my view. I find skillful performers on piano are at no disadvantage bringing out Bach's counterpoint. If I were to limit myself to recordings on harpsichord, I would simply never listen to Bach keyboard music at all.


Well, you know, he couldn't prevent himself writing expressive music either, and hence expessiveness is at least as central to his art as fugues. And so one central question in this debate is, how does the instrument measure up to the expressive demands of the compositions. This is what I was thinking about when I suggested above that the ricercar a 3 from opfer isn't really a pianistic piece


----------



## Bulldog

Baron Scarpia said:


> If I were to limit myself to recordings on harpsichord, I would simply never listen to Bach keyboard music at all.


Understood. You should listen to Bach's keyboard music on the instruments that give you the greatest enjoyment. The comments that particular Bach pieces do not work well on the modern piano are only opinions; try not to pay attention to them.


----------



## Oskaar

I have big problems with harpsichord. Even if Bach composed it for harpsichord, I find piano much bether to listen to. The music is the same. And with piano it is accessible to me ☺


----------



## Malx

Skaarse said:


> I have big problems with harpsichord. Even if Bach composed it for harpsichord, I find piano much bether to listen to. The music is the same. And with piano it is accessible to me ☺


I used to have great problems listening to most music played on harpsichord - but with some rooting about on Qobus and Spotify I discovered it was a combination of average playing, or recording of poor sounding instruments I had an issue with.

Don't give up I'm sure all our tastes modify as the years go by.


----------



## Dan Ante

Malx said:


> I used to have great problems listening to most music played on harpsichord - but with some rooting about on Qobus and Spotify I discovered it was a combination of average playing, or recording of poor sounding instruments I had an issue with.
> 
> Don't give up I'm sure all our tastes modify as the years go by.


 You can tell poor sounding instruments on Spotify? ????


----------



## wkasimer

Dan Ante said:


> You can tell poor sounding instruments on Spotify? ????


Sure. If something sounds poorly on Spotify, it'll likely sound even worse if you buy the physical product.


----------



## Malx

Dan Ante said:


> You can tell poor sounding instruments on Spotify? ????


wkasimer beat me to the answer. 
Whilst spotify may not have hifi sound a poor sounding harpsichord that grates (imo) when listening is noticeable to my ears, and when played through my hifi at home it will sound even more grating. 
But the fact remains my issue was a combination of the things I mentioned in my post.


----------



## Dan Ante

wkasimer said:


> Sure. If something sounds poorly on Spotify, it'll likely sound even worse if you buy the physical product.


You have obviously heard more on spotify that I have, from what little I have heard all instruments sound terrible to me, more so when the volume is increased.


----------



## Mandryka

Dan Ante said:


> You have obviously heard more on spotify that I have, from what little I have heard all instruments sound terrible to me, more so when the volume is increased.


I think _terrible_ is going to far, at least in their premium mode. But yes, Spotify do something to the sound which harms the overtones and other nuances of the tone, and delicacy and refinement, and sense of ambiance, sense of room. And with an instrument like an old Flemish harpsichord, where so much of the soul of the music comes from the complexity of the overtones and the sheer delicacy the sound, this can be a serious problem.

But it's cheap and cheerful, and it has a huge catalogue, and compared to other streaming services their music is well tagged. So we should be grateful IMO.


----------



## Strange Magic

I think Bach would have kicked, bitten, and elbowed his way to the front of the line to try out a Steinway, then would have refused to leave the stool so the next could try.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I think Bach would have kicked, bitten, and elbowed his way to the front of the line to try out a Steinway, then would have refused to leave the stool so the next could try.


That is almost certainly true, but he probably would have written different music to take advantage of the different capabilities of the piano.

I still see harpsichord or clavichord performance as the most appropriate for Bach's keyboard music. I have listened to everything at least once on harpsichord, just so I feel I understand what he was imagining when he wrote that music. But the sound of the instrument (on recordings) gives me no pleasure and I look to performance on piano that are true to Bach's style.


----------



## gardibolt

I have to go with clavichord. So much more richness than harpsichord, but still avoids the sustaining quality of a modern piano. Plus it's likely what Bach would have played on much of the time.


----------



## Dorsetmike

For me harpsichord, preferably pedal harpsichord, I first saw and heard one many years ago played by Michael Austin then organist at Wimborne minster, he had it in his home. Most of Bach's organ works can be played on a pedal harpsichord, to me a few even sound better than when played on some organs.
One of my favourites is BWV 582


----------



## hammeredklavier

Alydon said:


> The strange thing is Bach's keyboard music sounds as though it was composed for the piano, the cross-over is amazing. The concertos still seem better on the harpsichord but works like the WTC seem to have a greater emotional depth on the piano. I always fine the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue only works best on the harpsichord, and never fails to astound.


well I think WTC played on piano sounds plain weird.. As is the case with most other Bach keyboard works. The piano makes the bass lines muddy and pianists play them soft like a "baroque angel" (



) on the modern piano, which is probably not Bach actually would have wanted them played.


----------



## Josquin13

garibolt writes, "I have to go with clavichord. So much more richness than harpsichord, but still avoids the sustaining quality of a modern piano. Plus it's likely what Bach would have played on much of the time."

My understanding is that clavichords were used more at home in Bach's Germany, within the intimacy of a family living room, & not at concerts, where they wouldn't project well. For this reason, there is no way that Bach played a clavichord down at Cafe Zimmermann's, for instance (indeed, we know that he played a harpsichord at the coffee house). Plus, Bach owned two lute harpsichords, and it's possible that he played those instruments often at home, maybe even more so than his clavichord & harpsichord (that is, when he wasn't playing the violin).

As to which instrument I prefer--I think that if a Bach lover truly seeks to understand the content & style of this music, they have to listen to it played on a harpsichord, or lute harpsichord (or clavichord), extensively. The Goldberg Variations, for example, are specifically composed for a two manual (French) harpsichord--it says so on the title page. If nothing else, there's no other way to come to terms with which pianists most deeply understand the content & style of Bach's keyboard works--via what are essentially transcriptions made for a modern grand--and who is way off the mark, like the crazy Canadian. In other words, I don't think that a listener can adequately see how odd a certain pianist's choices may be, unless they know this music very well--via a variety of different interpretations on the instrument or instruments that Bach specifically tailored his keyboard music to.

For example, pianist Andras Schiff's recording of the English Suites won a Grammy award, and is generally highly regarded--I gather. Yet, if you listen to Bob Van Asperen or Christophe Rousset play the English Suites on a harpsichord, I expect you'll begin to see that Schiff makes some unusual choices, interpretatively (along with some rather contrived ornamentation): which are unlikely what Bach had in mind, either interpretatively or stylistically. It might surprise some people, but I think that pianist Ivo Pogorelich is better informed about this music than Schiff. Indeed, Pogorelich's English Suite No. 2 has more in common with Rousset's interpretation on the harpsichord than might be expected. Though I imagine some will laugh at this comment. But, here they are for comparison:

Christophe Rousset English Suite No. 2:





Ivo Pogorelich English Suite No. 2:





Alicia de Larrocha (who likewise understands the style of this music better than most pianists):





Andras Schiff English Suite No. 2:





Glenn Gould (who I admit I like more in the English Suites than in the French Suites, where he can get truly bizarre in certain movements):





In addition, I find that pianist turned harpsichordist turned back to pianist, Virginia Black, plays the 6 Partitas differently, and in a more informed way, than many other pianists I've heard in these works (as much as I like what Maria Tipo, Dubravka Tomsic, Dinu Lipatti & others do with this music, interpretatively):






For comparison, here's what the excellent harpsichordist Pasal Dubreuil does with the 6 Partitas:






Another interesting comparison to make is Gustav Leonhardt's French Suites to pianist Edward Aldwell's, as I likewise find Aldwell to be better informed about the content & style of the French Suites than many other pianists:

Leonhardt:






Aldwell:










Though my favorite recording of the French Suites is Bob van Asperen's:






In summation, I'm very glad to have both piano & harpsichord recordings of Bach's keyboard works. Since I like to go back and forth, it somehow makes the music more interesting & varied to me, just as long as the pianist is informed, & plays with taste & temperament.


----------



## Orfeas

Well since Bach himself never was a "one instrument" kinda composer hence the WTC for example, I personally cannot judge his music based on a specific instrument only and disregard any other. I feel like the piano is the greatest achievement and invention of mankind, and it's the final ultimate form of keyboard instruments in terms of dynamics and pitch range, and can bring out the beauty of Bach's work to its fullest and give it justice. I personally love and cherish past keyboard instruments that were available at Bach's time such as the clavichord, harpsichord, lautenwerck, or spinet, and organs, and many others. However, the richness of his compositions makes it beautiful wherever it's played and whenever.


----------



## Merl

I much prefer the sound of the piano. I'll be honest, I've never got on with the weedy, nasal sound of the harpsichord. Like Beecham (supposedly opined) i find the harsichord sound akin to “skeletons copulating on a tin roof. I much prefer the sustain and dynamics of the piano. Just my opinion so dont shoot me.


----------



## starthrower

Some harpsichords sound worse than others. I bought the harpsy WTC on Naxos. Sounded the best to my ears.


----------



## Itullian

piano 100% for me.
It sounds beautiful and can be played in a variety of ways.


----------



## Larkenfield

There are two main differences between the instruments for me: (1) the dynamic changes are far more possible on the piano than the harpsichord, and that can either be a strength or weakness. Listen to the first variation of the Goldberg Variations on the piano. Most pianists jump on it full force with a jarring double-forte and play the hell out of it, which, quite frankly, I have never cared for. On harpsichord, strings are not struck but are _plucked_... and the volume of the first variations is never jarring, at least to my ears, and I consider this far more in keeping with Bach's intentions and much preferable... That's a huge change, and on a great sounding harpsichord can be marvelous because the plucking of the strings seems to pull the sound out of the instrument rather than beating the b'jesus out of the strings on the piano. (2) However, most pianos are better sounding than most harpsichords, IMO, the latter so often sounding tense, nervous, and too-closely miked. With a harpsichord sound as beautiful as the following, there are special qualities of subtly, delicacy and refinement that I just love:






GBV No. 1 on harpsichord, essentially no dramatic change in dynamics:






Beating the hell out of it and galloping on piano at a double-forte:






Nevertheless, I consider Bach playable under both instruments with a sensitive performer, great sounding instrument, and well-recorded without it sounding like the microphone is buried within the bowels of the harpsichord. And I do not believe that the harpsichord should ever have a nervous sound... and yet some players will rattle on unconsciously in a way that would make coffee nervious and as if they don't notice._ Bah Humbug!_


----------



## Harmonie

Harpsichord all of the way! Not only is it time-period accurate (which is important to me, because I really love the sound of instruments of the Baroque style), but, to be honest, I prefer the sound of the harpsichord over the piano altogether.


----------



## jasper01

personally not fond of the jangly sound of harpsicord so much prefer piano.


----------



## flamencosketches

I voted piano but I've been listening to some of Bob van Asperen's recordings and I think I'm starting to be swayed. If only his music was easier to find. I listened to his French Suites on Youtube and it may be the best recording of them I've heard, went to look for the CD and it's damn near $100 on Amazon. Couldn't find it anywhere else. I hear his teacher Gustav Leonhardt is supposed to be good too, so I'll have to look into his interpretations. van Asperen's tone is something else though. Never heard a harpsichord sound that good. 

On piano, I've been a big fan of Schiff, especially his more recent recordings for ECM. I like Angela Hewitt's Well-Tempered Clavier, and Ivo Pogorelich's two English Suites he recorded for DG in the 80s. Glenn Gould is how I got into Bach's keyboard music in the first place, so haters of his clearly idiosyncratic style can take my opinion with as many grains of salt as necessary.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Lautenwerck (lute-harpeichord)


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I voted piano but I've been listening to some of Bob van Asperen's recordings and I think I'm starting to be swayed. If only his music was easier to find. I listened to his French Suites on Youtube and it may be the best recording of them I've heard, went to look for the CD and it's damn near $100 on Amazon. Couldn't find it anywhere else. I hear his teacher Gustav Leonhardt is supposed to be good too, so I'll have to look into his interpretations. van Asperen's tone is something else though. Never heard a harpsichord sound that good.
> 
> On piano, I've been a big fan of Schiff, especially his more recent recordings for ECM. I like Angela Hewitt's Well-Tempered Clavier, and Ivo Pogorelich's two English Suites he recorded for DG in the 80s. Glenn Gould is how I got into Bach's keyboard music in the first place, so haters of his clearly idiosyncratic style can take my opinion with as many grains of salt as necessary.


Ignacio Prego recorded The Goldberg Variations using the same harpsichord as Asperen used for the French Suites, if not the same then very similar. And Jory Vinikour recorded Bach's keyboard partitas on a copy of the harpsichord. I rather like the latter, even though it's a bit severe.


----------



## Xisten267

C'mon people, we all now that J.S. Bach's pieces were actually made to be played on an 8-bit keyboard:


----------



## Sharkman

Piano for solo works. Harpsichord for continuo and acompaniment. My Twentieth Century ears are more accustomed to the piano, and I find the solo harpsichord sound reedy and devoid of dynamic range and therefore not very interesting. There seems to be more room for interpretation in performance on the piano. I wonder what Bach would have felt if the piano had been invented. I understand Mozart switched from harpsichord to piano at an early age, presumably finding it a more versatile instrument.
But for continuo or accompaniment it must be harpsichord. Piano is way too overpowering.


----------



## SanAntone

*Rethinking the Harpsichord: Lillian Gordis in Conversation*
by Parker Ramsay
Published January 2, 2023

In recent years, *Lillian Gordis* has made a substantial mark as a harpsichordist, not least with two solo recordings. Her latest, Bach, was awarded a Diapason d’Or from the prominent French music magazine, which heralds the album as “masterful, fulfilling, very personal, confirming the promises of a harpsichordist whose discretion is matched only by her temperament.” A Berkeley native, born in 1992, she began her harpsichord studies at age nine.

*Parker*: _What led you to stick with the harpsichord over the piano?_

*Lillian*: I had a hard time playing Bach on an instrument where everyone was always telling me to play one voice louder than the other. [Laughs] There was also just a physicality aspect. I like the contact and grip that you get from indirectly plucking the string on a harpsichord, and I remember really enjoying that feeling, in a very unintellectual and purely sensory way. (continue reading)


----------



## SanAntone

*Pierre Gallon, harpsichord*

Pierre Gallon grew up in a home that was overflwing with instruments of all kinds, offering him a limitless playground. When he was ten, he realised that the harpsichord offered the best way of expressing himself. Bibiane Lapointe and Thierry Maeder took him to the Conservatoire National Supérieur de Musique de Paris and its Early Music classes taught by Olivier Baumont and Blandine Rannou. He left in 2010 with two first prizes and the highest honors. Meetings with people such as Blandine Verlet, Elisabeth Joyé and Pierre Hantaï while he was studying were aesthetic epiphanies and deeply affected his approach to the instrument. (read more )


----------



## Mister Meow

Sharkman said:


> Piano for solo works. Harpsichord for continuo and accompaniment.


These are my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Rogerx

In my case, whatever floats my boat at the moment of listening. Must admit that the sound of piano sounds nicer in my ears then harpsichord.


----------



## Musicaterina

I vote harpsichord - the instrument for which Bach composed the music.


----------

