Rodrigo de Sá
This club's crushing bore
So many interesting issues!
First let me clarify: I have nothing at all against a good Bach performance on the piano. I love Kempff's versions of chorals, for example. But, in general, I think pianists allow themselves too much freedom and as a consequence Bach's music is not rendered well. A prime example being Gould, of course. I totally agree with Marc here: a krumhorn rendering of the art of the fugue is all right with me, and I would love to have a good string quartet version of many WTC fugues.
I have been listening to Szeryng's S&P. it is marvelously good. The interpreter tries to make himself invisible, so that the music flows. That does not mean that there is no emotion, but only that there is no personal emotion. I think you may say the same about Maurizio Pollini's versions of Beethoven's late sonatas.
At the other extreme there are musicians such as Milstein, who uses the music to express himself. I find no problem with that as long as I understand the emotions he is expressing and as long as these emotions do not go against the music (as they do in Gould's case, but not, I think, in Milstein's case). Another example might be made by opposing Guenther Wand and Leonard Bernstein.
Thinking about HIP performers I would argue that Gilbert is a prime example of Pollini- or Szeryng-style; and that Leohardt is a good example of Milstein- Bernstein-style, although in a completely different mood (and here I must say that I hate the Bernstein emotions, technicolor and very pop oriented).
Do I think there are limits to the extent of personal expression? Not really. Some are out of bounds when they actively go against the music (if someone were to play the 1st movement of the Beethoven 5th Symphony adagio e cantabile, or the toccata in d on the flute 8' and the tremulant, for instance). But this is very seldom done (except by Gould, again).
That is why I say that it is so difficult for me to pass a negative judgment on an honest player: as far as he does not go actively out if his way in order to be different (that is what I call being dishonest) and that he feels what he is doing to be the right way (that is what I call being honest) I can only disagree with his or her view. Now no one can criticize anyone because of a disagreement.
First let me clarify: I have nothing at all against a good Bach performance on the piano. I love Kempff's versions of chorals, for example. But, in general, I think pianists allow themselves too much freedom and as a consequence Bach's music is not rendered well. A prime example being Gould, of course. I totally agree with Marc here: a krumhorn rendering of the art of the fugue is all right with me, and I would love to have a good string quartet version of many WTC fugues.
I have been listening to Szeryng's S&P. it is marvelously good. The interpreter tries to make himself invisible, so that the music flows. That does not mean that there is no emotion, but only that there is no personal emotion. I think you may say the same about Maurizio Pollini's versions of Beethoven's late sonatas.
At the other extreme there are musicians such as Milstein, who uses the music to express himself. I find no problem with that as long as I understand the emotions he is expressing and as long as these emotions do not go against the music (as they do in Gould's case, but not, I think, in Milstein's case). Another example might be made by opposing Guenther Wand and Leonard Bernstein.
Thinking about HIP performers I would argue that Gilbert is a prime example of Pollini- or Szeryng-style; and that Leohardt is a good example of Milstein- Bernstein-style, although in a completely different mood (and here I must say that I hate the Bernstein emotions, technicolor and very pop oriented).
Do I think there are limits to the extent of personal expression? Not really. Some are out of bounds when they actively go against the music (if someone were to play the 1st movement of the Beethoven 5th Symphony adagio e cantabile, or the toccata in d on the flute 8' and the tremulant, for instance). But this is very seldom done (except by Gould, again).
That is why I say that it is so difficult for me to pass a negative judgment on an honest player: as far as he does not go actively out if his way in order to be different (that is what I call being dishonest) and that he feels what he is doing to be the right way (that is what I call being honest) I can only disagree with his or her view. Now no one can criticize anyone because of a disagreement.
Last edited by a moderator:
