# Playing Bach at the piano



## Rafael

This is an old controversy, but remains unsolved. In playing Bach my current russian teacher commands: No pedaling, no dynamics. Other teachers would add: no legato.
She explains that such resourses were strange to Bach's keyboard compositions, that they are unnecessary to play well such a music, and that he didn't composed for the piano, but for harsichords.
Of course I obey my teacher, as an exercise of self-discipline, but in spite of my own current opinion. I'd support the use of all the piano resources in playing Bach because:
i) I think that Bach didn't composed for the piano simply because there was no good pianos at his time. It was a recent invention and remained underdeveloped during his life.
ii) Bach had clavichords at his disposal, which allowed to use dynamics.
iii) My guide and goal is beauty. If the music sounds enriched at the piano and the result is beauty, what is wrong with it?
iv) The piano must sound as a piano, not as a hapsichord. The piano has its own dignity.
v) The tradition of playing Bach at piano began immediately as soon as good pianos were manufactured. If great composers and artists as Chopin, Liszt and Busoni gave his approval, why to be contrary?
vi) Great pianists, for example, Joseph Hoffman, declared in favor of pedaling, in order to get organ sonorities, and provided that the clarity of the voices were preserved. My teacher protests "That was not Bach's music then, but Hoffman's".

What do you think?


----------



## 009

GREAT TOPIC! Rafael!
Finally...someone brought up this 'dreaded' discussion here. 
Ok, both u and yr teacher are right, BUT, I will have to be 'fair' and say that Yr more right. LOL :lol: 
Some would argue that it all comes down to personal preferance... that I strongly disagree.
okay, 
How one approaches Bach, is greatly influenced by what one percieves of him. If u see Bach as the archtype of well mannered academic counterpoint, then a calm exposition is necessary. But if u see him as an innovative Baroque Master, who not only catured the essence and 'true' spirit of Baroque playing, but cultivated it to a whole new dimension, then a more 'explosive' style, should we say, will be assertively accurate.
I will have to dab into some main concerns here...Firstly: Bach's unique language of articulation and punctuation.
Do u notice how Bach's music often comes with a ' comma at the beginning of each important phrase( and they usually don't appear with the first pulse of each measure, but by the 2nd and 3rd - which is really unique). This notation was added by editors and not by Bach himself. But without these '...u'd probably have expressed or punctuated Bach in some other ways...it might not have been wrong, but certainly meaningless. So do follow those ' , for they speak of Bach's unique way of sentencing music.
Next comes articulation. Not all of Bach is staccato. But some pianists played 'certain' of his music this manner, as they wanted to imitate the harpsichord feel. There's nothing wrong with imitating periodical music... but all considerations had to be made with referance to the actual nature of the music itself. I can't imagine playing staccato all way through his slower dances like Courante or allemande. It simply will not make sense, esp. so if the music is very French in nature( Bach used alot of French elements during his Weimar period, and Italian Concertante for his later suites ). AND Bach NEVER did indicate that his music was to be expressed in marcato/nonlegato manner( we did when trying to re-create that Baroque feel)...which, is in actual fact just a unfortunate, realistic limitations of the harpsichord, and with that the performer could never do any other forms of articulation other than a semi-dry staccato! Legato or no legato, mf or mp...there would have been no difference. BUT! Listen to Bach's work for strings. You'll be amazed by the Mannheim directions and articulations. 
Well, in actual fact, how one deploys the articulations in Bach depends on whether u undestand, as I was saying his 'unique' sentence. And if u do, then at times u'll find yrself playing longer notes ( crotchets, quavers ) as semi-staccato and shorter notes as legato, or vice versa. Bach's staccato is different from the staccato u use for Haydn( from a pianist's viewpoint ). His tends to be more 'german' in style, more crisp and bite for shorter notes, and more round for basso continuo.
Dynamics- I love terrace and Mannheim expressions, and I think these are 2 elements that will have to be retained, but not without flexibility to bring it to a higher order altogether. And it really depends how/what yr presenting. I once attended a grad recital, and nearly dozed off when this pianist played a really clear(good thing)...but restrained and monotonous account of Bach's WHOLE suite. And trust me...the review she got after the recital was disasterous. People criticised her for misunderstanding Bach. I think a calm exposition IS only safe if yr presenting a short, and perhaps 2 part counterpoint( such as an invention ) of Bach. For much of Bach is really contrapuntal...and he adored the Italian Concertante style and textures, which could only be justified by adopting a more 'explosive' ticket. And yet another viewpoint as a pianist- pls refrain doing small, 'hipcup' phrases for Bach...go for broader phrases with questions and answer (response-call )kind of structure.
Pedalling- A matured and wise pianist will definately use pedal for Bach, but AGAIN, it pretty much depends on the nature of the music. Baroque music is never as dry as u think. Actually much of the 'acoustics' is really wet in early Georgian music. Listen to yr Gregorian, Cantatas, Arias... How do they sound like? Fluffy and airy right? Well, That itself is the element of 'wetness'. Why? It has got to do with the architecture at that time. Notice how tall the roof is and how spacious the rooms are? And considering the fact that much of Baroque is Court Music...then I would expect a really 'wet' acoustic. So do use the pedal(but not as u please) where necessary. And Baroque pedalling itself is another huge topic. The technic used is slightly different. We dab the pedals instead of pressing it all way down. And just a hint as to when to use the pedal for Bach- in slower, rich, 4 part counterpoint progressions.
Tonal Voluptuousness- The piano in every aspect, is a better instrument to play Bach than the harpsichord. Because of its wide dynamism in tonal palette...it gives u an idea of Bach's philosophical weight. Do u think one will better understand Bach by hearing the harpsichord version? That I certainly don't think so!
And since we can accept string players + ensembles's recording of Baroque Music with Modernistic interpretations and so on? Why not play Bach the way in which He Himself certainly will agree upon, IF only he had apiano in those days. 
Thank you.


----------



## Daniel

Hello,

I think Bach can be played on all keyboard instruments, Bach himself didn't make this even clear. The effect is different. 

I love old instruments, but play Bach mainly on piano (actually because I don't have the possibilty to practise on a harpsichord or even a clavichord)

The Clavichord is one of the most difficult to play instruments because of two reasons: At first the dynamic. The clavichord has a very low tone, and to get the right touch to let the string vibrate, and to put this together to a right dynamic, very difficult

The second reason is the way of playing, the keys have a strange touch, you must get used to it.

Bach would have played himself on grand piano and also harpsichord...He would have used the progress, and why shouldn't you use. Thats like : why using pen, when at those time were feathers to write with.

Pedaling or not, that I decide from piece to piece, but in general, very few pedaling. I use pedal in some preludes in well tempered clavier, but in fugues and hard counterpunctual works, I wouldn't use it, because it would make the tone and harmonics too unclear.

Legato or non legato? Gould would say non legato . Actually I do a mixture, parts which shows basses, lines, and ways I mostly play non legato, all harmonic counterpointic things, like runs, canon like, and oversteping from themes mostly legato, but that depends on every piece.

A good question how it was played to that time on harpsichord, and what tempi, the musicology has different opinions.

BTW, did you hear of the theory, that we all play the music aroound the half to fast :blink: that also after the invention of metronome by our so loved human Mälzel, that there has been a misunderstanding of tempo, that it is around the half to fast. Others say, we play them to slow, and want to fix that on critics to that times. Who knows...

Greetings,
Daniel


----------



## Thomas

> Baroque music is never as dry as u think.


yes. I certainly think so.



> And if u do, then at times u'll find yrself playing longer notes ( crotchets, quavers ) as semi-staccato and shorter notes as legato, or vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Yap. It all depends on the music. Even GGould has some wonderful contrast of these 2. He will play the melody legato and the Lh some crazy staccatos.
> 
> 
> 
> We dab the pedals
> 
> 
> 
> Yukko does that doesn't she? U know the Japanese pianist? I think her pedalling work for Baroque and early music as such is marvellous. I once attended her concert. Her Pedalling for Mozart was inspirational. Who would have thought of that? Pedal + Mozart. But the acoustics effect was great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second reason is the way of playing, the keys have a strange touch, you must get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that they are more retarded in touch, is that right Daniel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because it would make the tone and harmonics too unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. But I will not think it's safe to say completely leave out pedalling for strict heavy counterpoint, it really depends on the music. I have seen pianists using the pedal for very chordal progressions also, but they tend to stop or 'dab' at certain places, unlike normal pedalling which is carried all way through the musical context. It's almost impossible to discuss actual use of pedal on the net. U need specific reference to scores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, did you hear of the theory, that we all play the music aroound the half to fast that also after the invention of metronome by our so loved human Mänzel, that there has been a misunderstanding of tempo, that it is around the half to fast. Others say, we play them to slow, and want to fix that on critics to that times. Who knows....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. This is what is vexing. So one's judegement of Bach's tempi will be very much on how well u understand him and his compositions. But I recalled that there is a table of conversion for Bach's tempi and ours today done by a bach scholar. Maybe we ought to post it on this site. I'm sure it will be insightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## 009

> *It's almost impossible to discuss actual use of pedal on the net. U need specific reference to scores.*


yeah, it would all be easier with actual referance to scores.
There's no 'rules' as to when or when not to use pedal... I myself use it sparingly, in stylistically varied context...be it Bach or Handel and etc. But I do agree with Daniel on tone and harmonics having to stay crystal clear.


----------



## LiLi

everyone has such great input here. I love it! 
sorry if my response is lacking in contrast. hehe.
All I have to say is that I agree that Bach's music should be played with some well placed pedalings and dynamics.
If you're goal is to keep a very strict interpretation of Bach, it would be best to play him on a harpsichord. So, as long as you're NOT playing on a harpsicord, I say don't worry about being strict. I agree with Rafael that a cheif goal is beauty, so why not make the music sound as best as it can on the piano? It seems silly to take a beautiful instrumnt like the piano and try to make it sound like another instrument. The harpsichord has its own features that make each piece beautiful. These qualities cannot be truely reproduced on any other instrument, so in their abscence, I think you need to utilize some of the piano's unique features to keep the pieces sounding interesting and alive.

That's just my personal thought; One of the greatest glories of music is that it is open to interpretation.


----------



## RMuso

This is always a very heated debate and can lead to endless discussion with no conlusion. After weighing up all the technicalities and aspects of true historical performance etc it can all be very conusing.

The simple way in which I have come to understand it may help shorten what's already been said, then again it may not!

Basically Bach did not have access to what we know as the 'modern' piano, so was unable to play with the sound qualities and technical capabilities which differentiate it from the harpsichord and clavichord. Therefore, if you want to try and recreate a sound similar to what Bach intended, use the instruments he composed for. If you want to play Bach on a piano, and there is no reason why not, then don't try and recreate the harpsichord/clavichord affect, it will always be unsatisfactory to the ear. Why not experiment with Bach by exploiting the character of the 'modern' piano!!!!!!! If this means adding pedal then so be it, there is no problem unless you are trying to be authentic.

Basically, you need to decide what you want to achieve when playing Bach..... then you can decide how best to get what you want!!!

I don't know if this makes any sense..... it does in my head


----------



## Lisa_Rowe

I agree with you. I had a masterclass last year where the professor brang a score with Bach's writing on it, and it basically said that the music should be cantabile (singing style). So I think we should play Bach with dynamics and different articulations. Just no excessive rubatos - it's still Baroque


----------



## avrile

I don't believe in playing Bach without pedal. For emphasizing chordal harmonies, which is important in Bach theory, I would suggest that this mechanism be used. Available technology is not directly proportional to performance practice. If Bach was born in the 19th century for example, he could have used all available technology, i.e., a wider keyboard and the pedal.


----------



## Krummhorn

Vladimir Horowitz was able to execute Bach quite well at the piano. I'm sure there are other great artists who have accomplished this, but Horowitz was the name that came to mind at this moment.


----------



## Azathoth

Wasn't a big thing with Baroque music the freedom of the performer?

Had Bach had a piano at his disposal, he would have used it. If you think that using the damper pedal or anything else piano-specific would be in keeping with the spirit of the piece, use it.


----------



## papuo

*new post from me, papuo*

Rafael's piano instructor's statement about putting the dynamics off on Bach's pieces caught my attention. Wasn't just the issue here putting the PEDAL on? Does dynamics have much to do with it? I just thought that putting off the pedal doesn't require you to disregard the piece's dynamics as well, does it? I remember when I was starting to play one of Bach's studies, repeated phrases have to be played softer than that of the first. Isn't that a form of dynamics? I think it is. Plus, he was a in a matter of fact very particular when it comes to markings. I don't really consider myself so good at focusing on dynamics but I don't just ignore them. Just try to imagine his fugues, if all the coming voices/parts are loud, the listeners would be confused which is right? I believe Bach is such a very genius composer to just set aside something which could possibly make his compositions brilliant.


----------



## papuo

*Bach's technicalities*

Well since that everybody seemed to have an endless unknown conclusion and just to have a little break form this controversy, I would like to jump to another. I have read something that tells me Bach had been so very technical with his markings and is actually very consistent with it- that sometimes some unwanted errors became very visible. It was said that his too much consistency tend to square the performer's attitude in playing. What's your view on this?


----------



## Tré

*Hmm...*



DW said:


> I will have to be 'fair' and say that Yr more right...
> 
> This [comma] notation was added by editors and not by Bach himself. But without these '...u'd probably have expressed or punctuated Bach in some other ways...it might not have been wrong, but certainly meaningless. So do follow those ' , for they speak of Bach's unique way of sentencing music.
> 
> Not all of Bach is staccato...


I'm sorry, but this is very frustrating.

a) He's not more right; Bach, as you've pointed out, did not have a piano. That's that. I'd say about 95% of his keyboard music was written for the harpsichord. He wrote his harpsichord music to be played on the harpsichord, not on any similar instrument or an instrument that would later replace the harpsichord on so many different levels (i.e. the fortepiano and even later the pianoforte). That being said, though he obviously would not prohibit one's unique interpretation of any piece - nor would an author prohibit the interpretation of his literary masterpiece, for that would be quite self-contradictory, he did not his music with devices like pedalwork or dynamics. It was impossible. So if those devices fall within your interpretive license, utilize them. Otherwise, it's not really playing the piece, is it? Rather, almost, a variation of sorts.

b) Where are you getting your info, bud? Bach is obviously the mastermind behind such markings. He revolutionized the counterpoint and is the inventor of the unique comma marking you're referring to. No publisher should be given credit that belongs to the wonderful Johann S. Bach.

c) You're right there. Not all of Bach is staccato. In fact, relatively very few segments within his keyboard works are staccato.

Now onto my humble advice:
As I've mentioned, IMHO, it depends on whether such pedaling, dynamic work, and other devices affect the integrity of the work in periodic terms. Even if your goal is not to be periodic in your approach, a piece's technique does not come from its performer, but rather its composer. I'm going to have to say that your teacher was more correct; in a performance, it's best to play as your teacher recommended - possessing a passion for your playing, but maintaining the technical integrity of the work.

When it comes to dynamic, follow what your teacher tells you in reference to that particular publishing of Bach. I doubt your sheet music's publisher omitted all forms of dynamic manifestations. Read it .


----------



## Ephemerid

As far as the pedal goes...

This may be more a matter of my own personal preference, but I prefer little or no pedal to piano performances of Bach's work. That doesn't mean it has to be played staccato per se-- but generally speaking, I feel the pedal needlessly muddies up the individual contrapuntal lines of Bach's work. I just like my Bach a bit on the dry side.  

~josh


----------



## 4/4player

Hmm...This seems interesting...I'm currently a High-school student and over the past few months I've had very long disscussions and Conversations with my music teacher. He plays piano and majored in voice and conducts our Concert band. Anyway, he is a Bach and Baroque lover.
I remember having a certain conversation about Bach and debating if it sounds nice on a regular piano. I will now somewhat recreate that conversation if memory serves me right:
Zach( Me) : Mr. S, Do you think Bach should be played on a piano? * At this point, I gave him a copy of a cd with someone playing one of bach's Concertos*
Mr. S: First of all, I'm an "****-retentive" kind of guy. I specially look for the quality and time setting of music. I definatly believe that Bach should not be played on the piano, but rather the Harpichord. Of course, Bach sounds good on any instrument! If he was alive today, he would have probably liked the electronic Synthisizer( sp)!
Zach: Could you elaborate on why you would rather the "classic" sound?
Mr. S: Well, Bach did not like the piano when it came out, he hated it. It was new, and he prefered the organ or harpsichord to the piano. Another reason is because there was essentially no "pedal" on the organ. As with past conversations we had earlier this month about organs and their construction and architecture, remember?
Zach: Yes, sir, I remember.
Mr. S: Good. Getting back to the subject, There was also no vibrato in the baroque period. See, even my collague is a violin player and she absolutely hates straight-playing with no vibrato!
Zach: What about dynamics?
Mr. S: Ah, a good question, Zach. The Harpsichord did not have the dynamics as the piano does--it can't crescendo or decrescendo. It can only go to Forte, back to Piano. When you tap the keys of the harpsichord, it's like tapping on an electronic keyboard--without the weight.
Zach: Anything else before I leave?
Mr. S: Hmm....I believe that Bach sounds better on the Harpsichord because it has that "metal" sound to it as the keys pound fast, like a clang,clang,clang! sound. I also prefer that the bach music for orchestra/ sinfonia/ chamber orchestra be performed with antique instruments( He tells me one specific chamber orchestra and one specific Baroque pianist, but I can't remember the names at the moment).
Zach: Thank you very much, See you tomorrow!
Mr. S: Bye!
END OF CONVERSATION
So, that's basically what he told me, it could be more stuff, I don't know...But I think Bach sounds nicer on the Harpsichord or organ, thats just my preference... 
Keeping Beat,
4/4player


----------



## thicks

I think that pedalling and even techniques like rubato can be used as long as it is subtle and you would be able to justify your choice - Why make bach sound rigid and boring when it can sound incredibly beautiful?


----------



## R-F

> That's just my personal thought; One of the greatest glories of music is that it is open to interpretation.


I agree with that. I once went to see a Concert Pianist do a master class with some fairly talented youngsters, and there was one boy there that I remember particularly well. He was playing a Chopin Nocturne, and I thought he played it _beautifully_. Once he had finished, the Concert Pianist told him to play it again, this time only playing what was written. The pianist apperently thought the boy shouldn't play with so much rubato and expression, because some of the stuff he was playing wasn't strictly written down. As a result it was still played well, but with none of the boy's interpretation.


----------



## Methodistgirl

My favorite Bach piece on the piano is Jesu Joy of Man's desire. Even though I can
play it on any instrument myself. It's my favorite.
judy tooley


----------



## marie

This is really an interesting discussion. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I grew up playing the piano and I remember my teacher used to say that I looked very bored when I played Bach. At that time, I found the touch too dry for my taste. I also did not get why I had to play more than two melodies when I had only two hands. But as I grew older, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself becoming really a big fan of Bach.


----------



## tonyyyyguitar

Interesting topic - eposters have pointed out some interesting aspects and challenges.

Heres a different perspective - Im mainly a guitarist though I do play Bach on keyboard too. On guitar I dont try to sound like a harpsichord . I exploit a lot of the possibilities of guitar - dynamics, maybe tone colour, vibrato on expressive notes. Im aware of playing a *transcription* and am not thinking harpsichord or organ or cello or whatever the original instrument is . Certainly we need to study and be absorbed in the various and varied styles Bach used - sometimes rhythmic and exciting, sometimes lyrical, sometimes passionate. so vibrato and rubato are possibilities (certainly used at the time) I would learn from period performers on different instruments, who are rarely dull and dry. Bach had no problem with rewriting the same piece for very different instruments and would change things to suit the new instrument. I listen to a lot of harpsichord and love it , but if I were playing piano I would 'think piano' and spend time working at how the particular piece would be best expressed on piano. So its a transcription which uses most of the same notes (probably less ornaments as piano can get expression and dynamics in other ways) Im not much of a pianist but if I were playing one I would maybe tend to use a bit of subtle pedal , sometimes none (trying to keep clarity, also by careful control of note length) and a little rubato and dynamics (depending on the piece) .
Academic style 'correctness' is a poor choice, or maybe just a starting point and an experiment,before going for a real interpretation. The more I have learned about baroque performance practice the more freedom and flexibility there seems to be , and the more interesting and varied the playing by baroque specialists so I look forward to learning a lot more (as I am doing in this great thread)


----------



## fox_druid

This is surely an interesting topic.

As for me, I play the piano and Bach is my first priority. In my opinion, it would be better to use all the possibilty provided by the piano as long as you don't lose the baroque feel, just don't let it sounds 'chopin'.


----------



## Mayerl

Since the early seventies, we have been blessed (plagued??) with the early instrument advocates and with them every object that can be plucked, blown or hit. I have no issue with many of these "instruments" as long as I don't have to hear them on a too regular basis!!
The main argument put forward by these groups of people seems to be, "it was how the composer would have preferred to hear it". CR*P. How dare any one be so presumptious as to speak for someone who has no right of reply. 
Throughout his composing life Beethoven was constantly frustrated by the inabilities (not their fault) of the piano manufacturers to produce an instrument that was up to his visions and capabilities. his increasing deafness not withstanding.
I think it fair to say that Beethoven would have sold his soul to possess an instrument of, say, the 1860's, given the advances in piano technology in the 40 years or so since his death.
It has been said earlier in this thread that Bach did not like pianos. It has to be borne in mind that these were EARLY instruments, still unrefined, largely experimental and hugely inconsistent in both the quality of build and sound whereas the harpsichord was by now a fully mature instrument. To draw a parallel, were people not suspicious and mistrustful of 
steamships, early aicraft and the motor car?
In terms of performance therefore, before we become slaves to the printed score, I think the thought should be, would Bach have composed his works any differently on a 19th century Bluthner (the Leipzig connection), and as a result, how would he have played them. 
I have no objection to hearing period instruments and long may their protagonists flourish, musical history needs to be preserved. I do think however, that like an 1920's Austin Seven, it's nice to give it an airing every so often but it is no longer the standard by which things should be set.


----------



## tonyyyyguitar

Tré said:


> I I'd say about 95% of his keyboard music was written for the harpsichord. He wrote his harpsichord music to be played on the harpsichord, not on any similar instrument or an instrument that would later replace the harpsichord on so many different levels


Dont forget the organ though....

I wonder whether at home he would choose clavichord (less likely to wake up all those babies!) and that does have dynamics and even vibrato of sorts.

fox_druid


> as long as you don't lose the baroque feel, just don't let it sound 'chopin'.


not even a little hint of chopin  
but seriously, think of the Goldberg Aria - very expressive and lyrical , surely needs rubato, and a kind of emotional charge that (in a different way, and filtered through a different sound-world) lies behind some of Chopin's music. You may have perceived I don't subscribe to the 'divine sewing machine' school of thought


----------



## Air

My problem is that whenever I play Bach it starts sounding romantic. For example in a fugue, phrasing within the melody should be subtle but still present. As a whole piece, the phrasing as a whole is gradual as well, but grows to a climax (which is usually the loudest part of the loudest melody). 

The trick to Bach I think is to make each of the voices sing. Rubato, I feel, is never necessary, but if used, you should fit it within the same time frame as if you played all the notes on beat.

Currently working on Prelude and Fugue No. 18.


----------



## mozart453

I am coaching a student on the WTC, Prelude and Fugue in c minor.. and the opening prelude is a stream of 16ths..From the various recordings I have sampled, the pianists who were most convincing did observe quasi non legato..which is almost detached. It basically should not
drift into the legato of the Romantic era. And then in the so called Adagio section, there is a feeling of utmost freedom and elaboration..I think the non legato should still be consistent, though a dab of pedal here and there, very elusively could flesh out this part. I think everything done tastefully will rule.
On the fugue, the articulations of the subject are very pivotal to the performance. and the way the subject and countersubject are introduced must show internal consistency.

Gould, in my humble opinion went over the top in his very objective approach to Bach.
Perahia, is my favored interpreter of Bach.. because he is not afraid to be lyrical when appropriate, as in the opening aria of the Goldberg Variations.

Rosalyn Tureck's reading also appealed to me, and I heard her live at Carnegie back in the 60's perform an all Bach program.

I suggest you listen to Perahia's English suites, and his Goldberg variations as a good reference.

Shirley K


----------



## Air

mozart453 said:


> Perahia, is my favored interpreter of Bach.. because he is not afraid to be lyrical when appropriate, as in the opening aria of the Goldberg Variations.
> 
> Rosalyn Tureck's reading also appealed to me, and I heard her live at Carnegie back in the 60's perform an all Bach program.
> 
> I suggest you listen to Perahia's English suites, and his Goldberg variations as a good reference.
> 
> Shirley K


Both Perahia and Tureck are no match for Edwin Fischer, the true greatest Bach interpreter. His style may be more subtle, but he brings out the voicing even better than Glenn Gould.

Kind of hard to find his discography, but here you can find his interpretation of the Well-Tempered Clavier. I've also seen a very limited number of recordings on YouTube.


----------



## Air

Ooh, How could i forget Maria Yudina?


----------



## Weebles

I play these texts on the piano . Like Shakespeare, they are profound texts which have totally transcended the time in which they were written. I totally respect, and have followed, all the research on performance history, instruments,ornamentation etc..But there comes a time in the the end where you interpret the text.YOU HAVE TO MASTER THETEXT FIRST! (Sorry for shouting. This is crucial.) The thing is, if you do this, there is so much richness, variation and life-enhancement that can follow......


----------



## Weebles

In the end , to me , Bach SINGS. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists,and have learned the complete organ works. Have given up trying to make that instrument sing. Am now working on Book 2 of the "48" . I'm sorry, but the wonderful F major prelude can only reveal its full potential on a modern piano.


----------



## Mandryka

Weebles said:


> In the end , to me , Bach SINGS. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists,and have learned the complete organ works. Have given up trying to make that instrument sing. Am now working on Book 2 of the "48" . I'm sorry, but the wonderful F major prelude can only reveal its full potential on a modern piano.


Have a listen to Richard Egarr playing it, maybe there's enough cantabile for you.


----------

