Daniel Chorzempas Wohltemperiertes Clavier

Does anyone know Daniel Chorzempas recording of Bachs
Das Wohltemperierte Clavier? A Philips 4 CD-set from 1997.

As Robert Levin, whos recording I havent heard, Chorzempa uses different instruments according to the character of the pieces: chamberorgan, harpsichord, clavichord, and in part II a fortepiano in a few of the pieces. This works alltogether wery well.

You may consider Chorzempa as some sort of historically informed Walcha, since he has got the same unbelievable
control of the instruments, the same ever present intense concentration, and the same power to articulate each voice indepently, creating a very clear polyphony. But with Chorzempa the details are all correct. His articulation is completely natural. His agogics are more limited than fx Gustav Leonhardts, but he is still very expressive and never mannered.
The concept of a definite recording is certainly nonsense,
but this is very close, worthy to be placed alongside Leonhardts recording.
Cheers

 

It is interesting that you mention Corzempa. I only listened to him once (live) and I was quite young. I remember he played the Von Himmel hoch variations and that I didn't like them at all but I forgot about the rest of the impression he caused on me. I do remember he was extremely relaxed (I mean his body position - I could watch him) and played from memory.

Is there any place from where samples can be downloaded?

I also have Levine's WTC. Gilbert used to do the same in concerts (of course, not on the clavichord) but I always preferred a more unified approach. In a few days, if I have the time, I'll comment on two more versions I acquired recently. One of them is played on the organ and is quite successful (he even uses the 32') for the b flat minor fugue of book I, but it does work).

 

Christoph Bossert's organ WTC2 exists,too. Is it an enlightening experience or a real stinker?

 

Dear RdS
I am ashamed to tell you, that I own a number of recordings of Das Wohltemperierte Clavier, which I havent heard yet, because of my temporary preference for other genres (e.g Machaut, Dufay and first and foremost renaissance and baroque organ music). Inspired by your contributions in this forum I decided to listen to all the recordings of WCl, I have got, during the next months, beginning with the ones I havent heard, and started with the Chorzempa, which I aquired through a local dealer 5 (!) years ago, and I must say that I dont know if it is still avilable. The next will be the Dantone and the Desenclos . I suppose this is the one you hint to supra.
Cheers

 

Dear Bat
I have just - caused by your question - listened to Christoph Bosserts recording of Bachs Das Wohltemperierte Clavier
part II (Ars Musici 1998) for the first time. A recording of part I by the same artist was planned but never made and I understand why. This is the most boring Bachplaying I have heard for a long time. Letargic tempi almost without energy. RdS wrote somewhere that the music of Bach is about interplay between tension and relaxation, but Bossert is endless relaxation. Add to this, unprofiled articulation and often undistinct partplaying. Sometimes he seems to imitate harpsichordsound, but what is then the point of playing the music on the organ? And the organ he plays has not much character either (Ehrlich 1748 Stadkirche Bad Wimpfen).
Cheers

 

pe-zulu:
I know the Chorzempa version but rarely listen to it / prefer other versions.
As much as I can understand the approach of using different instruments: Chorzempa does not state why he is using the respective instrument for the respective prelude / fuge - and I really would like to know the reasons for his choices of instruments.
What makes the whole set a bit troublesome to listen to is the state some instruments seem to be in (with some instruments you really begin to wonder if they will make it through to the end of the piece...), and the different recording levels. I just hate it when I have to rush to the volume control every 4 minutes or so. In short: not my cup of tea.

 

Dear MTL
I find your objections irrelevant. Surely I prefer harpsichord, but Chorzempa has shown me, that parts of the WCl
can be played on other instruments with interesting and enjoyable results. The choice of instrument is purely artistic, you cant argue pro et contra, except for the fact that fortepiano may be relative out of question. If Bach had liked the instrument, he surely should have owned one himself - you know he owned many different clavierinstruments. As to the state of Chorzempas instruments I am sure that they are in perfect state. You may think otherwise if you not are familar with their sound,
and your remark about different soundlevels point to that, since different soundlevels is the true nature of these instruments.
Cheers

 

Dear pe-zulu,

Now that's quite a coincidence! I too am listening to Machaut, Dufay, Desprez and Pérotin and I feel slightly detached from Bach's music!!

And yes, I meant the Dantone and the Desenclos. Dantone is all right (the b minor WTC.I PF is indeed very deeply played), Desenclos is very interesting. But I will elaborate further until I really see the connection between Pérotin and Machaut (this is not very difficult) and, chiefly, between Machaut and Dufay - I'm failing to see the key to the evolution.

More, I am trying to connect early Gothic Art to Pérotin, which is not very easy, Radiant Gothic to Machaut (on which I am failing miserably - there is the Messe de Nostre Dame, but all the rest? and how does the hoquetus links with the classicism of radiant gothic?) and, last Flamboyant Gothic with Dufay - which seems to me more in keeping with Radiant Gothic than flamboyant...

And, of course, Ockeghem and Josquin, - renaissance but sounding like flamboyant gothic (this one can understand).

So I am exactly in the same wavelength as you do - perhaps you'd care to clarify issues for me a bit?

Your thoughts on Renaissance organ building would be most welcome too. I, too, am deeply enamoured with Renaissance organ music - always have been. It is a very real pity it doesn't sound too good on the harpsichord: all you gain are a few spread chords that do enhance expression, but otherwise the deep breathing of the music is quite lost. Or at least I haven't yet managed to do it.

 

I don't know the recording, but you'd never believe how soft a clavichord can be. If you play in one room and other people are in the next room, they will not listen to it (certain clavichords are a bit louder). My visual comparison to the sound of a good clavichord is the tail of a comet: it is really next to nothing.

However, it can be movingly beautiful if played well which I find extremely difficult to do. It is quite easy to play out of tune, wide chords with many notes are a nightmare, and a tenth or an eleventh are - at least to be - impossible to get right without the danger of getting out of tune. And although you can play with dynamics it is very difficult again to stay in tune while playing loud (well, comparatively) or soft.

This is because the movements of your fingers are totally carried to act upon the strings: if you apply more pressure the string will be tighter and therefore higher in frequency. You can even play vibratos!

Now a good harpsichord has a lot of sound: if you play for some hours with the cover open you'll notice it in your ears. People who say a harpsichord is a soft instruments or does not sustain long notes are certainly thinking in terms of the modern grand pianos.

A pianoforte, at least an Italian one, is close to the harpsichord: its sound carries well. As a matter of fact, the actual body (I don't mean the attack which is quite different) of the sound is not very different from harpsichord timbre. That is why they were called Gravicembali col piano ed forte - harpsichords with piano and forte (which, again, is understandable only in Italy because Italians almost always built single manual instruments, therefore not having the possibility one has when playing one a double harpsichord (you couple the keyboards and play with the two unisons and the octave on the lower keyboard - believe me, it is strong; you move to the upper keyboard and you get much softer sound.

But perhaps you knew all this. If that is the case, please do forgive me.

As to the instruments being well or not well restored, there is something very important one should note. Many of the historic instruments are not very even (that in spite of voicing efforts), and with some harpsichords and many clavichords you can listen to a lot of parasitic sounds if the microphone is very close to the strings - as it must be in the case of the clavichord (N.B.: much more so in the case of an organ - when it is small, the tracker action sound, that it, the mechanics that connect the keys to the pallets allowing the valves to admit wind to a given note can be very disturbing to someone who is not used to it - a kind of tsk tsk tsk that sounds with every note depressed. I almost don't notice it, but my wife, who is not a musician, always complains when the tracker action is loud).

You see, the Steinways, Bechsteins and Bösendorfers one listens to nowadays are machine precision made. This is also true of modern organs which do not try to copy old ones (as I witnessed last month sitting at the console of Saint Eustache). The historic instruments were actually hand made. So perhaps you might try to abstract yourself from these noises. Well, LP lovers do endure pops and cracks and say that is a price worth paying for the beauty of sound. That is about the same thing.

Again, I'm sorry if I'm only telling things you already know.

 

Dear pe-zulu,

Well, I wished I had been more accurate in my comments, and obviously my exaggeration (about the condition of the instruments) wasn't that obvious at all...
Anyway, being a musicologist (although I'm far from being an expert on 17th/18th century keyboard music) I'm perfectly well aware that my objections regarding different recording levels is absolutely irrelevant, in fact absolutely pointless as equal levels would be more than unnatural. Still, I do prefer recordings using one instrument for the entire cycle and some of the instruments Chorzempa uses are quite wonderful (and I'm pretty sure that all have been restored properly and to the best knowledge), for example the C.C. Fleischer harpsichord from 1716. I equally have no objections as far as the Dutch cabinet organ is concerned (sorry RdS: builder unknown...). I have to confess though that I cannot really find enjoyment in listening to the clavichord by H.A. Hass (1742) or the one by Silbermann (1775) although - again - from my lessons in instrumentology and various visits to instrument collections I am well aware of the instrument's difficulties and restrictions and certainly never would like to play one myself (but you wouldn't believe it: I'm quite tempted to get a virginal some day).
Honestly, I find it difficult to abstract myself from the noises (and I guess the microphone being quite close to the strings doesn't help either) - at least as far as recordings go. It wouldn't be a problem in a live performance though - but on a recording I tend to pay too much attention on any clouding of tune.
And pe-zulu, although the choice of instrument may be of purely artistic nature, I still do think it is not irrelevant to object that the listener is left alone with Chorzempas choice. Wouldn't you agree that it would be interesting to know why he plays for example BWV 859 on a clavichord but BWV 860 on a harpsichord? I really would like to know - and even though this is probably more an editorial problem, it sort of spoils the whole set for me, as there is something accidentally about the ungrounded choice (and I guess Chorzempa had his reasons - at least I do hope so...). If this was just for Chortzempa's private use: so be it. But as this was meant as a public artistic statement I think he owes it to us as listeners to enlighten us on such a crucial question as the choice of instruments.
Anyway, at least the set remains an interesting take on the wtc - and that is more than some other versions can offer. Still - I cannot really warm to it - its diversity is not for me.

 

Dear RdS
Oh, what a difficult job you ordered me to do. I am neither musicologist (like MTL) nor professional musician but a musicloving person with primary interests in baroque instrumental music. From that I have gradually moved backwards concentrating on listening first and foremost to instrumental and secular music, and I have by now reached the trouveres. I have listened only to a few Masses, the ones I have heard being the oldest e.g. Missa Tournai and Machauts Mass.
It is a great problem that the scientifically edited scores to this music are very difficult or very expensive to aquire, and I live far from a library which can put such things at my disposal. So I have to rely on treatises from musicologists and CD-s. As you know this is an expensive solution too. Any performance of this music will incorporate a lot of interpretation from the artist,
and it is difficult to estimate the quantity and quality of this. So I feel that I am on shaky ground in these matters, but I have heard a lot of astonishing wonderful music.
When I listen to Machaut and his polyphonic predecessors I
think it is well audible that the parts were written in sequence. The tenor first, somtimes a known melody or gregorian
hymn. Later the discantus was written and then the contratenor and so on. This often gave rise to rather harsh dissonances in a yet not fully established system. The Ars Subtilior composers worked in the same way just making the voices more melodious and the "harmonies" more perfect, but already Landini I think conceived the composition as a whole often with an extremely melodious upper voice , and this was taken over by Dufay, who at the same time simplified the harmonies a little. The later composers (Busnois,Josquin) was rather occupied with polyphonic counterpoint and imitation within this more simple but still wery complex system. I do not think much more can be said about this, since all the composers are highly individual and original, and from an artistic point of view owes very little to each other. Perhaps the picture should look otherwise if all music from that period had been preserved.
Renaissance organ music is to me fx Bull,Cabezon, Sweelinck,Attaignant,Titelouze, so I cannot entirely understand your description. I think that much of their supposed organ music is well suited for harpsichord. But if you think of Kotter,
or Andrea Gabrielis Intonations .., well, but this music is perhaps not the most interesting.
I have just heard some of the Dantone and some of the Desenclos
Wohltemperiertes Clavier. Dantone is an "orgy" of ravishing harpsichord sound, bright but not too much, and a clear crisp bas - I like it very much. And the interpretation very informed, full of energi, momentum and well controlled temperament.
Desenclos on the other hand seems to be a spiritual copy of Walchas 1960-61 recording. Desenclos has a very structural view on Bach. Almost every piece has got the same basic character as in Walchas recording, and even the sites of register changes are almost the same. Furthermore there is the same insistent almost relentless energy throughout and the same minimalistic agogic.
Of course Desenclos uses informed articulation,ornaments, rythm et.c. and his virtuosity is almost but not completely in the Walcha-class. So I think Desenclos in important questions is wery rewarding. It is a pity that the recorded sound (I heard part II) is somewhat muddy. I wonder if you will agree.
Cheers

 

Dear MTL
I think you ask for too much, when you want a motivation for the artists choise concerning instrument. If you buy a recording of WCl on piano, you will seldom find any explanation of that kind. You made the choise yourself by buying the given version. How do you explain your choice then? Well a matter of taste, I suppose. The artists choise is also a matter of taste .
Cheers

 

Dear pe-zulu
How do I explain my choice then? A valid question.
But the answer is pretty banal: I didn't choose it. As I had been involved in part of the translation of the booklet notes, I got it directly from Philips Classics. I don't think that I'd have bought it otherwise.
I still wonder though: do I really ask too much? Leonhardt for example gave a long note on his choice of instrument for his recording of The Art of the Fugue. I've seen quite a few organists explaining in the booklet notes why they chose a certain instrument for their recording. In his recording of Mozart's piano concertos, Gardiner explains in an interview why he did it the way he did it. There must be more examples around. I still think it would not only have been interesting to know about Chorzempa's decisions but would also have added to the significance of the set.

 

Dear MTL
Your example with Leonhardts treatise on Die Kunst der Fuge
is not valid. He argued that Die Kunst der Fuge is Claviermusik and not "orchestral music" even if it was edited in full score for "paedagogical" reasons. Leonhardt himself preferred harpsichord, but I think he will accept organ as well (but I cannot imagine him playing it on a Steinway with or without sons). I think we agree that Das Wohltemperierte Clavier is Claviermusik, the question is which clavierinstrument to choose, and not if it is orchestralmusic or not. I know that Mozart has arranged some WCl-fugues for strings, but I look at that as an unsuccesful experiment. Indeed it is wery rare to se an artist arguing for one or the other clavierinstrument, and when it happens (fx in Robert Levins notes to his recording of Bachs English suites) it is rarely convincing, and will always be a matter of taste.
Cheers

 

Dear pe-zulu

Don't think I did not take notice of your post. I did and found it informative, but before posting back I tried to research a little. Now I am trying to sort out 6th century music... SO it will take a while...