pe-zulu said:
His French suite on clavichord has passed my attention. BTW I think his great change in style took place before his second recording of the AoF, in the mid 1960es.
Regards,
Yes, I agree his main change was in the mid 60ies. Nevertheless, there was a period, perhaps around the 90ies, when his playing turned rather mechanical (chiefly in live concerts). After that he went even more austere but very profound.
Leonhardt's approach to baroque music is extremely interesting, because he marks the change from both romantic and objectivistic approaches to Bach into rhetorical approaches. As you mentioned in another thread, he plays in a sort of hierarchical way: there are longer phrases which are structured to less long phrases; and these less long phases depend on the beat and the rhythmical pattern of the piece.
Nevertheless, he does not always get it right. For instance, in the record I mentioned and in von Himmel hoch, he swings terribly, almost as a caricature of what to avoid. In the four voice, double inversion variation, it is hardly believable. Also, I witnessed some complete live flops.
Leonhardt said there was nothing theoretical about his play. In spite of being heralded as a 'cerebral' player, I think this is a mistake created by his recordings: he almost always is more open, more intense and less controlled in live playing. The only harpsichord records in which he unbuttoned himself are, I think, the Chromatic Fantasy (in the Zell harpsichord; the one with the Dulken is rather dull), his first Froberger record and, perhaps, most of his WTC II. I may be missing some other records.
So, in the end, I think Leonhardt is just like all convincing musicians: instinctive, sometimes he gets it wrong, most often it is interesting.
But that said, I understand Masolino's point. I am not entirely sure that, if Leonhardt was in his 30ies and began playing the way he does now, he would be so warmly received. I am also certain that, with some exceptions, if he was 30 and played
now the way he played in the early 60s, he would not get great attention (in spite of beautiful records, like his WTC II, which was, I think, recorded in the mid 60ies).
Regarding Gilbert. I value him almost as highly as Leonhardt, sometimes even highly. He is much more subtle, in some cases too subtle more most listeners (his AoF is a complete marvel, yet it was received as 'cold'; his Chromatic fantasy easily ranks with Walcha's and Leonhardt's, yet it is subtle and does not impress at first listening and was therefore received with indifference - quite incredible, this, once you have listened to the record!!).
He is usually very coldly greeted by French magazines (I can't imagine why) - these magazines usually being characterized by the presence of disgusting snob musician would be's - but I still have to listen to a more balanced view of most of Bach's harpsichord works.
Andreas Staier - whose fame I have never understood - said that Gilbert was too polite for his tastes. That does not surprise me, Staier being extremely plain in his playing. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the reason most people do not like Gilbert's playing. In writing this, I was reminded of something Helmut Walcha said: 'People read more, nowadays, but they read worse; in the old days one read less but better'. This is, I think, quite right: critics are, on the main, too superficial, they listen to too much and do not really re-listen.
Nevertheless, I again understand that one may like a more fantasticus reading than Gilbert's. But then Leonhardt's records are there just for that. For my part, I live happily with both... even if, when I play something, it is completely different from both of them. Then there is Koopman, Asperen. And, hey, there is even Staier or Gould for those that do not like Bach...:gould:
