Bach's violin partitas

It's good to be back here posting and reading what others have to say on my favourite topics.

One can probably say this about Hidemi Suzuki's recent re-recording of the cello suites also. But I suspect that's the whole point: an interpretation doesn't have to have "a point" that can be picked up and spoken about. I find Kuijken's and Suzuki's 2nd recordings of their respective music "charming" and soothing to listen to, and to me that means a lot already. In fact, rhetoric can take a definite second place to overall aesthetics in my book.

 

Well it is always fun to imagine how people centuries ago do certain things and try to experience it ourselves, especially if we also happen to find the end results to speak to us beautifully. Any one who can tell if a conclusive resemblance has been found was dead hundreds of years ago, so I don't worry about historical accuracy at all.

 

HIP or non-HIP: it just has to move me.

I've always liked Henryk Szeryng in these works: a bit stubborn maybe, but far from superficial.
Thomas Zehetmaier's approach (also non-HIP) sounds very fresh and vivid to me. Maybe that's a good one to start with if you want to 'learn' these pieces.

Right now I'm listening to Kuijken I. I've heard him play some of these works 'live' about ten years ago, and despite some technical and intonation problems, I remember being surely impressed by his playing. Somehow I feel that Kuijken has a good understanding of Bach's idiom. Unfortunately, this is just a feeling; at this moment I can't find the right words to found it.

Will these words ever come?

 

HIP or not

I posted about this concerning the harpsichord-piano debate. My position is rather ambiguous regarding this issue.

I am favorable to the knowledge of historic practices. For instance, if one plays an old instrument (by the way: thank you, your Summitship, I did not know about these differences concerning the violin) one understands there are things that are impossible to do and others that are quite natural.

But one cannot be trapped into imitating what it was like. Old instruments have a lot of defects, I mean, the Harnoncourt argument that in the 17th-18th century there was a sort of maximum of development in instrumental perfection is, I think, not true. 19th and 20th Century technology had a very pronounced impact on instrument perfection.

Old violins are difficult to play (Lord Summit dixit), old organs require that great volume is seldom achieved, old oboes have differences in tone in different notes (Harnoncourt dixit).

Harpsichords were perfect by then - the only problem was that they were unstable in tuning.

Now this means that these imperfections might have been exploited. In fact, in Buxtehude, Bruhns and Lübeck's music one actually hears how the unstable wind was used to great effect by using chords (they make the wind drop, and therefore there is a general trembling of the sound). I know nothing about violin technique, but I suppose that both the bow and the violin itself impose some limitations but allow other possibilities.

In many cases these shortcomings and possibilities are impossible to exploit in modern instruments: for example the unstable wind in organs or the meantone tuning. I suppose a similar case may be made for old violins.

Any ideas?

 

The old bows were Convex, not concave, it makes off the string type bowing very difficult. It's also quite limiting with articulation, you haven't got the wide choice of how you articulate a note available to you. Whenever I tried to play a baroque fiddle I just found it immensely frustrating.

To me there's always a danger that scholarship will take precedence over musicianship, instead of thinking what should a note sound like, you ask the question what 'should' it sound like. I find much modern string playing bland, with over airbrushed performences every note perfect, but not a drop of emotion. Players like Joshua Bell are the worst culprits of this. Strangely I think Accardo and Grumiaux started this trend. Their performances were always perfect but always the same.

I've never heard an authentic performance of the Bach Sonata's and Partita's that conveyed the emotion in the music to my satisfaction, there was always something missing. When I played Bach it was always like looking into your soul (particularly the Cello suites) and anything that got in the way of that would be a hindrance. I do understand entirely where you come from though RDS, and I quite admire those who on their string instruments anyway perversely make themselves suffer in order to fulfill an authentic performance.

 

Remember composers like Bach or Mozart used to "suffer" to fulfull ANY performance, so maybe the suffering IS in the music.

 

This is some of my favourite music, I have quite a few recordings:

Full sets by Milstein, Grumiaux, Lautenbacher, Ehnes, & Edinger.

Partial sets by Hahn, Gringolts, Zivoni, Mullova, Kuijken (1).

Plus a full set on the lute by Hopkinson Smith & a partial set by Nigel North.
Also a full set by Eliot Fisk on guitar.

I've also owned full sets by Van Dael on Naxos, Kuijken (2), Szeryng, & Heifetz but disposed of those as uninteresting (to me).

I think that's it!

My favourite is Christiane Edinger on Naxos - gorgeously slow and totally engrossing, for me anyway!

 

Your Summitship:

I do not quite advocate suffering; coming from keyboards as I do I must say that the historical technique is actually simpler than the romantic one. What I as trying to say is that the defects of old instruments are often explored to musical effects.

For instance, in old tuning systems, e minor or f#minor were awfully anguished, and that is why many musicians wrote anguished music in that tonality.

Also, the unstableness of tone in old organs means that you can explore it to great effect (in Bach's Erbarm dich chorale, for instance) and it may even be claimed that counterpoint is more clear: themes in repeated notes make long notes in other voices tremble, and draw attention to the theme.

As a further example, toe and heel pedal playing is very difficult in old organs, but I truly think this to be a good thing, because legato pedal lines are horrible.

I don't know if there is any real advantage in playing an old violin or an old cello (I cannot like the sound of an old cello, whereas the present day instrument is a marvel), but perhaps there is. If this is so, it would be interesting to experiment

PS., but just for harpsichords: When we come to harpsichord music this no longer applies because harpsichords ceased their development in the 18th Century, and modern day approaches could never match the beauty of old instruments. That said, I would be willing to experiment with perspex frames so that the instrument keeps its tuning.

 

Dear Jandl:
Is the Lautenbacher set still available?

 

Hi RdS

As far as I know it is only available from this site - http://www.cd101.net/

Well worth having!

Jerry

 

Dear Rodrigo

Susanne Lautenbacher recorded the Suites and Partitas twice. First recordng mono from 1964 (as stated, I think it was a bit earlier) rereleased on CD by Beyer Records.

Link:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/5747993?rk=classic&rsk=hitlist

The second recording for Vox stereo 1974 has been rereleased on CD by Vox but even in a licenced edition by Membran Documents,
which uses to present the original quality of the recording.

Link:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/3278356?rk=classic&rsk=hitlist

I own both recordings (the Beyer and the Vox release). Lautenbacher was about 35 years old when she recorded the Beyer and about 47 when she recorded the Vox. Both are so to say true to the score with rather discrete agogics and display here fine sense of structure and faultless intonation. The Vox is without doubt the most beautiful and impressive.

A propos Susanne Lautenbacher I would especially recommend her recording for Vox of Bibers Mysteriensonaten. Her is a link to an American site with some of her recordings, among these the Biber. You may purchase them by writing to the owner of the copyright to quite a lot of Vox recordings, he runs the site CD101.net , the one Jandl mentions, but you can write to him by email and order the CDs here: [email protected]

Kindest regards

 

I've got the Josef Suk 3xLP box set on HMV and it is absolutely wonderful.

Tony.

 

Dear Jandl and pe-zulu

Many thanks!!

As it happens, I have the Biber set - I found it in Paris before the internet craze. I first came across the Biber Suites through the wireless when I was 18, and it was by Lautenbacher. Later I had the occasion to listen to her live - beautiful sound, powerful presence. I managed to record into tape two or three of the sonatas (from the wireless) and it was quite an experience.

I absolutely agree that these are top recordings. In terms of 'period playing' they might be criticized, but they are a landmark and, even not considering that, quite an achievement.

 

Szeryng and Hahn

Szeryng is still the "standard" for Bach.

I did listne to Shlomo Mints recording very nice.

Another violinist that has incredible Bach interpretation is Hilary Hahn. You can listen and see on Youtube.

 

Hello after a very long time. I'll have many things to say. For now, I'll just mention I got the Lautenbacher 2nd set. Marvelous. She addresses the sacred. If you want I'll develop the idea, after next week.

 

Dear Rodrigo
I shall wait in tension.
Regards

 

Hi, pe-zulu. I will. I have been away (in Greece) but I shall oblige. Thank you for your interest.

 

Suzanne Lautenbacher's 2nd Set of the Sonatas and Partitas

Suzanne Lautenbacher's 2nd Set of the Sonatas and Partitas

I have been after this version for years. My first encounter with Suzanne Lautenbacher was a live concert when I was about 17. I was very impressed by her sonority and even by her presence.
Immediately after that I listened – quite by chance – to her Biber and I was very struck by it. A little later I acquired her Sonatas and Partitas – a Vox Box set – by the records were in such a bad state (plops and clicks and all manner of annoyances) that I only really remembered her masterful rendition of the sarabande of the 1st partita.

Later I bought her first version by mistake. I finally spotted (in a shop in Lisbon) her 2nd version.
I was very impressed. What strikes the attention first is her sonority: full bodied, vibrant, absolutely marvellous. It is a 'deep' sonority, and that sets the tone of her whole approach.

I think Lautenbacher is one of the very last players that approached Bach's music in a spirit of religiosity; whether she is religious or not I don't know and it does not matter. The important point is that she aims at the absolute, at the very core of absolute feeling of Bach's partias and sonatas.
You are not invited to enjoy yourself: you are invited to a ceremony, and a deeply serious one. By serious I do not mean boring. I mean sacred, in the sense that you are about to participate in the mysteries of existence: you will be submerged by emotions that are no longer fashionable: the very Christian mixture of catharsis through suffering, this suffering being of the utmost beauty. In fact, rather like the feeling one was supposed to experience during the Passion and especially Good Friday.

I supposed many professional music writers will declare her version 'romantic'. But in fact this is a poor description. When we say that Szeryng, Grummiaux, Milstein or Lautenbacher are romantic we are talking nonsense: the first two were, if anything, classical players; Milstein is an expressionist; Lautenbacher is more mystic. What happens is that we are swallowing Harnoncourt's propaganda.

During the 60ies and 70ies, Harnoncourt addressed baroque music as counter-distinct from the 'romanticism' ('a mixture of genius and ignorance' he claimed) of his rivals (all the other players). His was a very abrupt style, very much in keeping with the political violence of the later part of the 20th Century. All the emotions that were cultivated by former musicians were reduced to 'briskness'. Tenderness, Boisterous Joy, Mysticism, Heroism (in random order) were totally 'off'. This may stem from rock and roll – I don't really know – or from modernism. But the fact is that Harnoncourt's propaganda gave us a lesser Bach, sometimes very good, sometimes very poor.

Leonhardt countered this trend while sitting at its middle: he substituted sadness by tragedy and tenderness by sensuous playing (his early recordings were, musically speaking, rather poor; he then used marvelously beautiful – if historically inaccurate – instruments which he played with a lot of sensuality). When he plays the organ there is a kind of almost 'Zen' mysticism which is very taking.

So, together, Harnoncourt and Leonhardt made baroque music express a different thing from their predecessors. They claimed that it was the 'right' expression of emotions. But it is not, or at least I do not believe in it: briskness, tragedy, sensuous feeling, static mysticism are all characteristics of the generation that bought Das Alte Werk records: the young persons that were cultivated but wanted to reject Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, even Mozart and Beethoven. It is too much of a coincidence that Harnoncourt and Leonhardt were Right and at the right place at the right time: to me they are just products of an epoch. I do not mean to say they are bad musicians: Leonhardt is a brilliant musician.

What I do mean is that Lautenbacher's version has everything to be labelled 'romantic' but is every bit as genuine as the 'politically correct' Das Alte Werk school. Also, listening to Lautenbacher, you may be able to experience something that is, nowadays, almost forbidden: the mystical participation of music making.

 

Rodrigo, I think your contribution tells us more about you than about Bach, Lautenbacher or Harnoncourt.

I have the 2nd Lautenbacher set as well, and her Bach is definitely not mine. (Shit happens. :cry
To my ears, the recording sound is rather poor: harsh and shrill.
Her interpretation is indeed 'romantic', but I don't experience any spirituality at all.
Even Gidon Kremer's interpetation (to give just one example), who I think is sometimes very rude and overly intellectual, does have more appeal to me.

If someone would ask me: who is your favourite musician of the last decades? I probably would answer: Harnoncourt.
He converted me to the music of Bach.
On Palm Sunday 1980 I was 'home alone' and listened to the radio. The Johannes-Passion was broadcasted live, from the Concertgebouw, with Harnoncourt conducting. It's impossible to describe what happened to me after the first bars rolled into the living room, but I guess some people would call it a 'spiritual' experience. All I remember was that at first my stomach was touched, then my heart and head, then some perpiration left my entire body , and after all that I felt lifted up and somehow floated around the room.
The rest of the performance I heard in some kind of a dazzled mood, and when my parents returned I told them that I liked the 'Johannes' more than the 'Matthäus', which I already had heard sometimes, because both my parents sang in a oratoria choir at the time and they took me to rehearsals or performances.

Do I always like Harnoncourt's performances of recordings? No, sometimes I think it's exaggerated or even ugly, but there's always something happening when he's the 'boss'. He's a man who keeps searching, and who isn't satisfied with 'solutions' that were valid for decades, even if these 'solutions' were his own. So I do not believe in a Harnoncourt dogma or propaganda at all. And I think he himself does not either.

About religiosity, spirituality or even mysticism ('mysticism' is a notion that I'm still not able to describe): I think these experiences are very personally related. To me, both Harnoncourt and Leonhardt are very spiritual, but maybe in a way that is not to everyone's liking.
Harnoncourt is a member of a very musical and religious (roman catholic) family. Religion and art have always been a vital part in his life. One of his younger brothers, Philipp, is a priest and I once read that he is a professor in Christian art, liturgy and hymnology at the University of Graz. I wouldn't surprise me if they exchange a lot of their mutual knowledge and feelings about music, art, history, religion and spirituality.
I also read some interviews with Harnoncourt about HIP, and he always states that he himself does not believe in 'authenticity' and he also believes that each period in music and art is romantic
and spiritual in its own way, because every period has his own 'definitions' of this terminology.

If there has been any propaganda, I think it was spread by so-called imitators and followers, who made Harnoncourt's hypotheses to dogma's, and who condemned every other hypothesis as heresy.
This was the reason that 'HIP' turned into an almost radical religion, whilst the so-called founders like Harnoncourt never wanted it to be that way. Yes, Harnoncourt is religious, but not
a priest of his own 'propagandic' or 'dogmatic' religion. This religion does not exist at all, only in the head of the one-sided believers. As a reaction, the non-HIP lovers condemned the other party also, and called the HIP-believers a religious sect, with (for instance) mr. Harnoncourt as their high priest.

Unfair to Harnoncourt, I think.

I once read about the reactions of a lot of Concertgebouw Orchestra players, who were relieved to play Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in a totally different way. (Problem though: if Haitink wanted to do some Mozart or Beethoven, these orchestra members reacted as HIP-sect members, and convicted Haitink's interpretation. That's one of the reasons why Haitink left Amsterdam.)

I hear briskness, tenderness, boisterous joy and heroism in Harnoncourt's performances. Mysticism I do not know that much about, but personally I do think that 'mysticism' is not audible at all. It's an experience, and I think it's impossible to describe such an experience. My 'Johannes-experience' as described above, is just a thin extract of what really happened. If one would call that a mystical expierence, then I'd have to say that there is also mysticism in H.'s performances.
Harnoncourt's opinions about 'ancient' music are not related to political violence, rock 'n' roll or modernism, IMHO. He was a cellist in the Wiener Symponiker and felt unhappy with the overly romantic interpretations of 17th and 18th century music. He tried to teach himself a lot about the practice of music playing in earlier centuries and formed the Concentus Musicus Wien. I think all this happened even before 1960.
BTW: compared to World War I & II, I think that the policial violence of the later part of the 20th century has been rather 'relaxed', in any case in (Western) Europe. Maybe we have to blame the musicians of those brutal first decades of the 20th century: to calm down all emotions, they dowsed all music with a late romantic sauce, no matter in which period all this music was composed. (Your guess is right: I'm happy with people like Harnoncourt. .)

I for instance do not agree with this at all, which means that this can't be a fact, only a personal opinion. I myself believe that this is the case with almost every 'statement' made about music.
When someone has to say or write something about music, it is an opinion.

Maybe only that's a fact......

I want to conclude with another personal opinion (yes! ): your own ears are the best guide and judge when listening to music. So, please, enjoy your Lautenbacher. I will enjoy my Kuijken, Matthews and Fernandez.
'Different' people have 'different' ears. Which means it's rather useless to condemn other people's personal likings. I believe that radical HIP-ers, who claim that it's only allowed to listen to HIP and that they like it because of historical prove, actually like those HIP-performances only because of personal preferences. If they did not know anything about music history, they would also have chosen for the HIP-performances.

When I was young myself (granddad grows old), I listened to all various interpretations of Bach, and I liked the 'HIP'-interpretations the most, without any knowledge about musicology and/or history. And this preference hasn't changed until today. And I still have my own, personal spiritual experiences. Even with Harnoncourt.

 

Dear Marc

Thank you for your very interesting comments. I fully understand you - I myself sometimes like Harnoncourt and I am not saying that he is a bad musician.

My point, which has perhaps not come across very well, is that Harnoncourt's and Leonhartd's 'authenticity' was no such thing: it was the (desirable) translation of Bach's music into the new emotional frameworks that young people in the late 60ies and 70ies understood.

There is nothing wrong with that. What I tried to bring out is the fact that there is no way one can make a really Historically Informed Performance because the most important thing is the fact that the same emotions must be present in the performer and the listener.

However, it is a fact that I never really liked the abruptness (either in music or in his writings) of Harnoncourt. Leonhardt is quite a different matter, and I generally rate his performances (chiefly live) very highly.

This showed in my post: I disliked the fact that Harnoncourt called his peers ignoramuses (in turn, he was christened a 'baroqueux', I think by Karajan and I think he had a taste of his own medicine) but then I do not know the context.

While I am quite happy with our differences in opinion, I really think that there was an element of propaganda in Harnoncourt's writings - or perhaps I misinterpreted them: after all, I read them when I was 17 and I am 50 now (alas, I no longer have the texts that came with the LP versions of the Mass).

My post is, undoubtedly, a 'subjective' one. I labeled it as such when I sent it to a friend. But then, in the appreciation of music, as you justly stated, we cannot really be objective.

I would further like to state that I consider the 'old music' revolution a very healthy renovation. With all the good the bad also came, of course, but the net result was extremely positive.

In fact, I would like the movement to renew itself: much more piano versions of the Well Tempered Clavier are released than harpsichord ones (just as an example).

I apologize for not doing justice to your beautifully presented post: I want to reply to it today, or I will be stuck with it (it has happened before). But perhaps we can start something on HIP? This has been done before, but nevertheless, we might revisit the question. A few years make a lot of difference.