Bach's (who else?) cello suites

!!!!??!!!​

Original view, indeed!

 

I'd argue completely different, that they are amongst Bach's finest works, particularly the G major and the C minor

 

My understanding is that you disagree. Let me explain. Cello is a basically a monophonic instrument. The cello suites are like a one-fingered harpsichordist playing Bach harpsichord concertos, without an orchestra. The melodies are good, yes, but cannot maintain interest.

 

Dear RdS

You anticipate me now, using the word romantic. I would add: explicit romantic. This is exactly why I think, that such arrangements add something unnecessary, almost unwanted, since they make the implicit emotional content explicit.

I think your point is, that this is a romantic registration, even on a Schnitger-type organ. The Vox Humana in a context like that reminds me of Chapuis, except that he would add a tremulant. How does a registration like that reveal something of the music, if a saxophone rendering of the AoF doesn't?

Regards,

 

But this is the cello suites thread???

 

Which imbecile would that be?

Some would argue that an instument that cannot create changes in dynamics, and can only vary tone in a few simple ways is outdated and outmoded, and should possibly be burnt. But I won't.
I will however quote the great Thomas Beecham:
'The harpsichord sounds like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof'

To me the harpsichord is the keyboard equivalent of the recorder, it requires a lot of digital dexterity, but requires little musical input.
Give me a cello anyday.

By the way I know I am wrong, my question is do you know you are wrong?

 

Dear RdS

I am aware that stylus phantasticus litterally means free style. So in that way you are most right. But I see the fundamental elements of this style as relative important for the interpretation of very much other instrumental baroque music than Preludes non mensure et.c.. I don´t intend to say that Bachs music should be played with completely free rhytm, but that, as I wrote elsewhere: a relative free relation to note values in the service of expressivity should reign, within the frame of a regular basic pulse. Notes inegales is one degree of the realisation of this point of view. With sensitive and stylish articulation much of the free expressive rhytm will be self understood, and so I think that the articulation is a more critical element in the interpretation than the rhytm. Of course the rhytm should not be run in absurdum a la Lena Jacobson as to become senseless. But on the other hand the thorough metrical, mecanical way of playing Bach e.g. long sequences of semiquavers (e.g. F-dur Toccata 540) bores me to death.

Bachs articulation is another matter, and the sources in his chamber music give a lot of useful information about the articulation for string and wind instruments. In that context I find the, alas few, but telling articulation signs in the Organ Triosonates interesting. Some, if not all, of these Sonatas are supposed to be transcriptions from chamber music perhaps for violin, and since the principles of articulation in the organ sonatas are much like the principles in the chamber music, this may suggest, that Bach indeed had a general view upon the articulation, whatever the instrument. That means generally short articulation except in melism-work and in long runs, which were to be taken in "one bow" but as well as never over the beat. The most important common denominator for his articulation was, that it should underline the basic pulse of the music like Scheidt´s violin-like articulation. An articulation over the beat will tend to create a syncope-like effekt, and this would work against the basic rhytm like e.g. the Leipzig-school´s tied upbeats. The texture of Bachs music contains often relatively long standing slowly changing harmonies which seem to indicate long phrases, but each phrase must be played with detailled and rhytm dependent articulation. I think "frasing" means how you divide the sentences or frases, articulation means how you pronounce the individual letters (sounds). This is appliable to music without problems.

I have listened to Bylsma to day (Suites 1,2,5 and 6). It can´t be surprising, that I think this is some of the most subtile music Bach ever wrote, and contrary to what Bat wrote above, I think that Bachs way of contracting polyphony into one single voice, is next to miraculous. Maybe Bat should try to look at the suites from that angle.

Well, as to the Preludes Bylsma is often close to playing genuinely non mensure, and I find this too free, I want a regular basic pulse. He offers this in most of the dance movements, and with rather subtle free rhytm within this frame, and much how I like it played. The articulation is detailled and supporting the rhytm. And I think the tempi of the dance movements are well considered. Especially I like the pensive sarabandes and the fast gigues. His dynamic shadings are on the other hand very free and variable, and I shall not omit to call this a romantic trait in an otherwise predominantly well realised hip-performance. However my overall impression is that this is an expressive and beautiful performance, and I shall surely return to it more often than I did in the past.

Regards,

 

I never felt that I was properly dressed, when I listened to Starkers recordings.

 

I'll try to answer to the various points that arose.

First:

Your Summitship. I know you are teasing Bat (and he deserves it). But Beecham had in mind the horrible Pleyels, Gaveaus and Ehrads of Wanda Landowska, which are actually horrible. A good harpsichord is bright, but never dry (if played correctly: no recorder thing! ). That said, using a harpsichord is no guarantee that you'll perform well. On the contrary, it needs a lot of control on micro-agogics which is quite difficult to master. But you know all that

The cello suites.

Dear Bat:
No, a one fingered harpsichordist could not play the suites: you would need two hands. But that is not the point. The point is, as many have mentioned before, the music is subtle, very moving and is, in many cases, polyphonic (there actually is a fugue, in, if I am not mistaken, the 5th prelude). So get yourself a good version and listen until it has grabbed you: at one point you will understand the pieces.

As a matter of fact, I think that this kind of music, exactly like d'Anglebert's, is the best way to learn to really like music, because it is all about singing and declamation. Music, higher music at least, is a combination of vectors, curves, tension, release, balance and unbalance. You will find this almost in its pure form in the cello suites. I would go as far as to say that if you do not like the cello suites, you won't like much of what Bach has written.

And this leads me to:

Dear Pe-Zulu

You mention the importance of the pulse. Many musicians defend just that. Peter Hurford and, especially, Walcha come to mind. But even Walcha, who stressed the importance of the pulse, very often transcends it. In fact, while maintaining the pulse, he actually structures the works in terms of very long stretches. This is perhaps more evident in the organ fugues. He is metrical, but the pulse is never stressed. For instance, the b minor fugue (second reading) almost floats in the air.

I would say Bach's music is, in many cases, just what you said: a long and boring succession of semiquavers; what makes it interesting is precisely the overall structure. In the F major toccata the interest is precisely in the confrontation of two very different sections: the semiquavers and the chords. What is miraculous is the way he can keep the interest in such a monotonous way. Of course one cannot ignore the fact that the semiquavers are close to being boring, and therefore one must avoid it, either by not stressing the beat or by differentiated articulation, as you suggest. But this is, I think, only the beginning of the interpreter's difficulties: what is really difficult is to make the semiquavers as such unimportant: just a melodic and rhythmic pattern that will be combined with the chord pattern.

As this combination is not easy, all the interest of the music is how the two patterns will be integrated. Well, at least this is why I like the toccata.

If you favour a structural approach, I think this is the way. But you may play it like Koopman's first rendition (in the Garrell organ), beat by beat. And this is actually boring, I agree.

Is this to say that I favour really long phrases, in a romantic way? Yes and no. Yes, I favour long phrases; but not in a romantic way. A long phrase is rhythmically and agogically determined (for instance, in the doric toccata, ta.ra.da.ta.ta.ta.ta.ta.ta.ra.da is a possibility) and Bach very often uses a kind of rhythmic and melodic unit (the Orgelbüchlein is all about that) as a building block to the music. So what is important is actually this unit, and one must be able to change it according to the moment in which it occurs within the work.

A very good example here is the C major fugue (of the toccata, adagio and fugue): the theme is actually a kind of spring, which you can flex or loosen by and by.

However, Bach actually uses longer phrases: many fugue themes are a good example (for instance, the doric, but almost any of them is a good example). As an example, I recall the g minor fugue (from the fantasia and fugue): there are parts which completely flow (semiquavers in both manuals and pedal), and when the theme appears, it structures the flow.

This is becoming boring because I cannot actually provide the music. But what I want to say is that the themes structure the otherwise flowing (longish phrases, although rhythmically characterized) parts.

So, I would not agree that the beat is important in Bach: only inasmuch as it allows one to understand the basic rhythmic-melodic unit.

On the registration I suggested for the a minor prelude. This is, of course, a rather extreme example. But it is not completely far fetched: there are actual examples of very low bass registration with somewhat mild upper work. Anyway, what did I mean by it: the prelude may be viewed as a disorganized flow of one voice that is progressively structured by rhythm. So, if playing the beginning rather freely, slowly and then introducing a 'hound of hell' in the bass, you create the despair and horror of the beginning; then you must progress to some sort of plenum. Anyway, regarding registration, I think I will post my feelings in another thread. (Just to bring LordSummiT to complete despair) :RdS:

 

Emerson AoF - have a vague memory that they had done something unusual with tuning - viola up or violin down, something like that - may be completely wrong though!

as Beecham has been mentioned already, was it him who said to a lady cellist something like:
Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable of giving pleasure to thousands and all you do is scratch it?

 

He did indeed. My favourite two though involve piano's. One night during a particularly bad concerto performance, he turned to the soloist and said "don't look now, but we're being followed" and on another occasion he was asked if he wanted the piano moving from the stage for the second half "no" he said " it'll probably slink off by itself"

Oh I'm on a roll now, there was the opera singer who complained that the orchestra was too loud, as he couldn't sing loudly whilst he was on all fours. "Young man" said Beecham "Some of my best performances were given in that position"

RDS, of course I'm only teasing, but what did you expect!

I learnt that fugue for my final recital, and was supposed to play it from memory, the trouble was I used to get lost and go round in circles. I lost my nerve and used music, I reckon I could still be playing now if I hadn't!

 

Are you sure he wrote them? I'm afraid they are not up to his usual standards. Didn't someone recently prove that his wife wrote them (and some WTC1 too)? Here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ad123.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/23/ixhome.html

 

No, someone put forward a theory....but as we know plenty of theories abound. Apparently someone else wrote most of Shakespeares plays, and at least one historian says the holocaust didn't happen. That means it didn't right?
The cello suites and violin sonatas and partitas contain some of Bach's most sublime and expressive music. There are as I am sure you know, contemporary reports of Bach playing the Cello Suites on his viola for pleasure. He must have held them in some regard

 

Dear RdS

Even if I find a regular basic pulse important in Bachs music, I didn´t imply that the pulse (or the beat) should be stressed per se, but I find that the articulation should underline the pulse (and rhytm) without stressing it. This is obviously how the authentic indication of articulation in Bachs music works when present. When not present, it must be added in the spirit of the existing examples. Pianists who stress the pulse (beat) dynamically, and neglect the articulation leave me cold. Organists must articulate carefully to underline the beat. Another function of the articulation is making motivic units easily recognisable in the polyphonic web.

The semiquavers of the beginning of the F-dur Toccata might seem boring when you look at the score, but this naked score was not what Bach intended. And given the proper articulation the semiquavers may be very exiting, because you can hear the small motivic units wandering round from one part to the other.

Bachs organ music is of course miraculous because of the combination of a strong large scale construction and all the wonderful details which are displayed in the course of the actual work. Maybe I tend most often to listen to the details, as well as when I listen in an analytical way as when I listen in a more emotional way. I think it is the ingenious details, which first and foremost gives the music life and character. I can forgive an organist, who concentrates sucessfully on details, if he misses the regular pulse a little in between, but not the opposite. You mentioned, that the theme regulates the flow of the semiquavers in the g-minor Fugue (542), and this is certainly true, but only when properly articulated.

Your words about the registration of the a-minor Prelude (543) makes me think, that the effect you aim at, could be likened to two great physical planes interacting with each other, the music occurring so to say in their interface. At least you suggest some dualistic character of the work. Interesting thought . I newer thought of this Preludium in that way, I may be too earth-bound.

Regards,

 

I'm getting gaga! I meant the mozart sonatas thread... I'll post more fully tomorrow.

 

Perhaps the butler wrote them?

 

More probably you wrote them in an earlier existence.

 

Oh, no, you are not. I often make mistakes of that kind, - if this may consolate you.

 

Mmmm... I think Prof. Jarvis is either unmusical or an attention seeker. That stuff of Anna Magdalena being there from 1713 (or something) is quite odd. As for the music, even if there are pieces attributed to Bach that are not typical (the Erbarm dich chorale, the toccata in d), I never thought the cello suites belonged to that class, and I still don't. They are quintessentially Bach.

But then we know that Anna Magdalena used to copy, in fair hand, many of Bach's scores. For instance, there is a fair copy of the violin suites and partitas... Does that mean that she wrote them and then Bach went on to copy them in his less readable writing?? More, Anna Magdalena was a singer, she was a musician. But if she was so skilled why would Bach write and copy easy pieces for her (the notebook) to play?

Bah... every academic must find something to say and to make a career.

P.S.: edited to say that I mean no disrespect towards this kind of work. It is very important. The conclusions are very odd, however. Time will tell. In the meanwhile, the cello suites remain one of the most impressive moments in the music that goes by the name of Bach music.