bat
Connoisseur Par Excelence
French online shops have many Scott Ross CDs available (but only two CD selection of his d'Anglebert recordings). Experts often disagree on what is good and what isn't. You have to find out yourself.
The Keyboard Music of Bach
- Thread starter Rodrigo de Sá
- Start date
bat
Connoisseur Par Excelence
Hot tip: fnac.com seems to have the rare Scott Ross complete WTC !!!
RdS, all the best to you.
RdS, all the best to you.
Bat, thanks, and yes, experts often disagree in reviews. I, myself, tend to look to the positives of a recording rather than find fault. I read reviews because most of them offer an interesting perspective to the music, although I must admit they do exert a certain amount of influence.
Since Scott Ross recordings are hard to come by, I appreciate the link you suggested. I plan to get his Frescobaldi soon (available here).
Regards.
Since Scott Ross recordings are hard to come by, I appreciate the link you suggested. I plan to get his Frescobaldi soon (available here).
Regards.
pe-zulu, how would you rate Rannou's English and French Suites in comparison to Rousset's respective sets?
I listened to Mortensen and Allesandrini's Buxtehude recently, and I must say that Mortensen is excellent. Allesandrini is very good, but I prefer Mortensen's harpsichord and interpretation. I will be looking out for other recordings.
Regards.
I listened to Mortensen and Allesandrini's Buxtehude recently, and I must say that Mortensen is excellent. Allesandrini is very good, but I prefer Mortensen's harpsichord and interpretation. I will be looking out for other recordings.
Regards.
bat
Connoisseur Par Excelence
I have now listened to most of the Scott Ross 4 CD set. His d'Anglebert is very well recorded, played with an excellent instrument but now I understand why d'Anglebert is not a famous composer. Rather primitive music to my ears, especially the unimaginative left hand parts. That said,I had no problem with Ross's approach and the music does have great atmosphere and grandeur.
The Scarlatti CD is a revelation, immensely beautiful music, played brilliantly. The fourth CD is superb live Bach Goldberg variations (with Scarlatti encore), recorded in April 1985 at Ottawa University. All the records are available separately, but this is a bargain set - go for it!
The Scarlatti CD is a revelation, immensely beautiful music, played brilliantly. The fourth CD is superb live Bach Goldberg variations (with Scarlatti encore), recorded in April 1985 at Ottawa University. All the records are available separately, but this is a bargain set - go for it!
Rousset / Rannou
Sn66,
The English suites demands much virtuosity, and
Roussets English suites are sensationally brilliant. The very fast tempos favours the preludes, the courantes and the gigues in particular, which are played with extraordinary much energy. On the other hand I think, the allemandes and the sarabandes are played too fast and extrovert, and I miss some reflection, and some more refined expressive playing like Gilberts.
Rannous English suites are brilliant too, her virtuosity perhaps not in the Rousset class, but fully adequate. And she is warmer and more expressive than Rousset and also colourful in Mortensens style (Mortensen has not recorded the English suites). Tempi are not as fast as Roussets, but still she achieves very energetic rhytm in the preludes and gigues and she is more pensive in the sarabandes.
IMO Rousset is impressive, Rannou more enjoyable.
The French suites are tecnically less demanding, and you get the impression that Rousset doesn't now what to do of his virtuosity. He chooses to play the suites in a rather stereotyped french baroque salon manner, which doesn't consider sufficiently the plurality of the music, which has ancestors in the german suite too. Rannou is much more individual, more "international" in the style and more human and colourful even here.
IMO Roussets French suites are still impressive in their virtuosity, but also a little dull and foreseeable. Rannous are from a musical point of view much more enjoyable.
Regards,
Sn66,
The English suites demands much virtuosity, and
Roussets English suites are sensationally brilliant. The very fast tempos favours the preludes, the courantes and the gigues in particular, which are played with extraordinary much energy. On the other hand I think, the allemandes and the sarabandes are played too fast and extrovert, and I miss some reflection, and some more refined expressive playing like Gilberts.
Rannous English suites are brilliant too, her virtuosity perhaps not in the Rousset class, but fully adequate. And she is warmer and more expressive than Rousset and also colourful in Mortensens style (Mortensen has not recorded the English suites). Tempi are not as fast as Roussets, but still she achieves very energetic rhytm in the preludes and gigues and she is more pensive in the sarabandes.
IMO Rousset is impressive, Rannou more enjoyable.
The French suites are tecnically less demanding, and you get the impression that Rousset doesn't now what to do of his virtuosity. He chooses to play the suites in a rather stereotyped french baroque salon manner, which doesn't consider sufficiently the plurality of the music, which has ancestors in the german suite too. Rannou is much more individual, more "international" in the style and more human and colourful even here.
IMO Roussets French suites are still impressive in their virtuosity, but also a little dull and foreseeable. Rannous are from a musical point of view much more enjoyable.
Regards,
Rodrigo de Sá
This club's crushing bore
I must strongly disagree with you, Bat. Scott Ross' d'Anglebert is very regular, almost metronomical (but then listened to his Couperin recently, which I loved when it was first issued, and had the same sensation).
The real revolution in the way to play the French clavecinistes came from Gilbert. He perfectly well understood that all that music is rhetoric: it is about gesture and flow, like Bossuet's and Fénelon's sermons, indeed like Corneille and Racine. The left hand participates in the discourse, but it takes place foremost in the treble. But then, so does Chopin. Note that in the Sarabandes you are wrong again, because they are chordally oriented, and so all the voices are important.
Now, about the comparison between Rousset and Gilbert. Gilbert is a tad more subtle, and also a little more impressionistic. His curves have more flow, you don't experience the bar at all, and what you get is a wonderful ribband of golden sounds. Rousset has the advantage of having recorded all his harpsichord pieces.
And I'd like to state the following, so that my appreciation of the interpretations is clear. What do I like in an interpretation? That one completely forgets that someone os playing: the music must seem to flow from nowhere, as if played by itself. That is why I tend to like very self effacing musicians. That is why I value Rousset's English and French Bach suites so high. There does not seem to be an interpreter at all; not even a harpsichord: just music.
That is why I prefer, say, Leonhardt's to Mortensen's Froberger. So you might call me a rather strict musician: I like to listen to long curves, and structure is far more important to me than detail. I can perfectely well live with a good structural interpretation even if there are a fair amount of wrong notes. If you emphasize structure, you must sacrifice detail. But that is what I favour. That is why I like Rousset (and, above all, Walcha) so much. That is why I usually don't like Koopman.
I hope this clarifies my position.
The real revolution in the way to play the French clavecinistes came from Gilbert. He perfectly well understood that all that music is rhetoric: it is about gesture and flow, like Bossuet's and Fénelon's sermons, indeed like Corneille and Racine. The left hand participates in the discourse, but it takes place foremost in the treble. But then, so does Chopin. Note that in the Sarabandes you are wrong again, because they are chordally oriented, and so all the voices are important.
Now, about the comparison between Rousset and Gilbert. Gilbert is a tad more subtle, and also a little more impressionistic. His curves have more flow, you don't experience the bar at all, and what you get is a wonderful ribband of golden sounds. Rousset has the advantage of having recorded all his harpsichord pieces.
And I'd like to state the following, so that my appreciation of the interpretations is clear. What do I like in an interpretation? That one completely forgets that someone os playing: the music must seem to flow from nowhere, as if played by itself. That is why I tend to like very self effacing musicians. That is why I value Rousset's English and French Bach suites so high. There does not seem to be an interpreter at all; not even a harpsichord: just music.
That is why I prefer, say, Leonhardt's to Mortensen's Froberger. So you might call me a rather strict musician: I like to listen to long curves, and structure is far more important to me than detail. I can perfectely well live with a good structural interpretation even if there are a fair amount of wrong notes. If you emphasize structure, you must sacrifice detail. But that is what I favour. That is why I like Rousset (and, above all, Walcha) so much. That is why I usually don't like Koopman.
I hope this clarifies my position.
Last edited by a moderator:
bat
Connoisseur Par Excelence
No big disagreement in this case. D'Anglebert's music improved to my ears with repeated listening. It seems to be that kind of music that doesn't make much impression at first. Yes I noticed at once that Ross is very regular. Perhaps that was just the way these pieces were played in the 17th century? How can we know? Perhaps Rousset isn't regular enough?
And if Ross's approach has regularity, that implies that it has also structure, which is exactly what you like, right?
If I have someday the chance, I will check out Rousset's D'Anglebert. Until then I am happy with what I have.
And if Ross's approach has regularity, that implies that it has also structure, which is exactly what you like, right?
If I have someday the chance, I will check out Rousset's D'Anglebert. Until then I am happy with what I have.
Rodrigo de Sá
This club's crushing bore
Dear Bat: No, I do not like that kind of regularity; I only like the phrasing of music to be respected. So I do loath the 'strong bar' oriented interpretations. I feel structure comes to the fore when small motives are not given undue importance and therefore a bar oriented approach is horrible to my ears. That said, you could do much worse than stiking with Ross. But there is a marvelous interpretation of the Tombeau de Monsieur de Chambonnières, played by Skip Sempé in a Chambonnières record (Deutsche HM) that everyone should listen to: quite superlative.
Interesting that you should say that, RdS, about Rousset. There are quite a few professional harpsichordists whom I know who don't think very highly of his interpretations. Some comments (in gist):
His recordings are usually straightforward and are good documents of the music, but they do not bear repeated listening. There are no hidden musical phrases that come to light nor interesting interpretations, and in recorded music, that is no longer acceptable. He plays the notes but does not make music. (Rousset's English Suites)
There is more to performing that just putting the notes down (which he admittedly does very well). It seems that unimaginative recordings are still the status quo among most listeners.
He does not dig deeply into the emotional core of the music, playing accurately but superficially. The music is musically underdeveloped and holds very few interesting ideas.
These same people esteem artists like Edward Parmentier, Pierre Hantai, Skip Sempe and Bradley Brookshire, commenting that their music is always exceptional.
I hold both Rousset and Parmentier in very high regard, in spite of their differing styles. But I am not a musician, and I usually look at the good points of a recording rather than harp on the shortcomings.
As you are a musician, albeit non-professional, I pose this question to you: are their comments about Rousset valid? Is he an unimaginative harpsichordist who is unable to bring new dimensions to the music, or is he an unassuming musician who places himself at the service of the music?
Regards.
His recordings are usually straightforward and are good documents of the music, but they do not bear repeated listening. There are no hidden musical phrases that come to light nor interesting interpretations, and in recorded music, that is no longer acceptable. He plays the notes but does not make music. (Rousset's English Suites)
There is more to performing that just putting the notes down (which he admittedly does very well). It seems that unimaginative recordings are still the status quo among most listeners.
He does not dig deeply into the emotional core of the music, playing accurately but superficially. The music is musically underdeveloped and holds very few interesting ideas.
These same people esteem artists like Edward Parmentier, Pierre Hantai, Skip Sempe and Bradley Brookshire, commenting that their music is always exceptional.
I hold both Rousset and Parmentier in very high regard, in spite of their differing styles. But I am not a musician, and I usually look at the good points of a recording rather than harp on the shortcomings.
As you are a musician, albeit non-professional, I pose this question to you: are their comments about Rousset valid? Is he an unimaginative harpsichordist who is unable to bring new dimensions to the music, or is he an unassuming musician who places himself at the service of the music?
Regards.
pe-zulu, as always, I hold your views in high esteem. Am I right in thinking that you consider Rannou to be deeper and more expressive than Rousset? I recollect that you said that Parmentier's works had initially given you a negative impression, but I do hope that repreated listenings of his English Suites reveal his layered and superlative interpretation.
I definitely hope that more comments and views could be added to this discussion of recent recordings of the English and French Suites. It is not my wish to be inflammatory, but such opinions are interesting and help, I believe, the listener to appreciate the music even more.
I must say, among all the harpsichordists, Leonhardt is universally respected and admired, but Rousset either inspires great admiration or disdain. I find that most harpsichordists consider his music to be straightforward and uninteresting, whereas peformers like Parmentier and Pierre Hantai are usually well received by them.
In fact, no less than David Cates, whom I admire as a harpsichordist of depth and feeling, remarked that Hantai is the most exciting and interesting performer in the last decade. I have only heard his Goldbergs, which are fantastic, although Gilbert's version remains close to me.
Regards.
I definitely hope that more comments and views could be added to this discussion of recent recordings of the English and French Suites. It is not my wish to be inflammatory, but such opinions are interesting and help, I believe, the listener to appreciate the music even more.
I must say, among all the harpsichordists, Leonhardt is universally respected and admired, but Rousset either inspires great admiration or disdain. I find that most harpsichordists consider his music to be straightforward and uninteresting, whereas peformers like Parmentier and Pierre Hantai are usually well received by them.
In fact, no less than David Cates, whom I admire as a harpsichordist of depth and feeling, remarked that Hantai is the most exciting and interesting performer in the last decade. I have only heard his Goldbergs, which are fantastic, although Gilbert's version remains close to me.
Regards.
Sn66,
Usually I agree with the wiew of RdS in these matters, but as to Rousset our wiews seem to differ quite a lot. For the moment I am listening to more English suites, when I have got the time. I have access all in all to many versions, and as I want to listen to each one at least twice, this will take some time. To day I listened to the version of Peter Watchorn, one of the best I have ever heard, I think. Hope it will bear a second listening.
I will report in more detail later.
Regards,
Usually I agree with the wiew of RdS in these matters, but as to Rousset our wiews seem to differ quite a lot. For the moment I am listening to more English suites, when I have got the time. I have access all in all to many versions, and as I want to listen to each one at least twice, this will take some time. To day I listened to the version of Peter Watchorn, one of the best I have ever heard, I think. Hope it will bear a second listening.
I will report in more detail later.
Regards,
Last edited by a moderator:
Rodrigo de Sá
This club's crushing bore
That is a very good question and I would like to develop my thoughts about what you say.
When I was very young I was astonished that Leonhardt was so highly regarded. I was trained in a strict way of interpretring music. When I grew up, I grew to like Leonhardt's interpretation to passion, but, at the same time, I could still like (and, indeed, I prefer) the likes of Walcha.
When Gilbert's WTC was out (I listened to it live before recording, so I knew waht was coming), the French magazines, above all, surprised me: they loved Gould histrionics, were quite mad with passion all over leonhardt's spread chords, but though Gilbert 'straightforward'. Now I never undestrood this. Gilbert is far more subtle than Leonhardt, but his decisions are always musical and, to a well trained musician, understandable. He does not like to shock, but to charm and move. Leonhardt's approach is more muscular.
The doubt lingered in my mind: are they (the critics) too gross and rough to understand Gilbert's agogics? Must a harpsichordist pound on the clavier and make two crotchets really quite unequal to be thought expressive?
My conclusion is, unfortunately, positive. Yes: they just don't get it. They get Koopman (who wouldn't?!?); they get Leonhardt (*not* my prefered Bach interpreter). But do they really understand Walcha's agogics?; or, easier to detect, Gilbert's? Or, in the present case, Rousset's? I DO NOT THINK SO. Most critics are frustrated musicians. They were just not good enough. So they like everything overtated (Leonhardt's early recordings were quite grotesque, I thing; see the Vanguard catalogue; he has matured since, but by Jove, he played awfully when he was 30 or so).
For me, a really good interpreter makes music sound. Not the instrument, certainly not himeself. But the music. Now Bach's music, as I have said once or twice really is difficult to get because he plays whith primitives (in the mathematical sense of the origin of derivatives) of music emotion. Just listen to his 12th prelude and fugue of WTC I. If you read the score it is horribly lugubrious, desperate, horrible, tragic music. But all the tragedy is understated. Must one bring it to the fore? I don't think so. One can (I do, when I play to myself). But it is really not necessary: if you understand the music you don't need histrionics. Of course, Leonhardt's version is superlative. But, to my mind, the best ever rendering is Walcha II. Not a hint of histrionics: just plain music, very well played, and a perfect sense of architecture. And all is said. If you really understand the interpretation, it will haunt you for life.
'But he just plays the notes...'. That is completely wrong. You can't feel the bar; all you listen to is a forward movement, an unforgiving one, which leads you, inescapably, to tragedy. Of course, Leonhardt plays with rubatto and so on. Is it better? It is easier to understand. But again, is it better? I do not think so. If anything, it is a triffle more superficial, because he payed attention to all the horrid details, and not so much to the tragic architecture.
Now, in the Suites, where counterpoint is not very important, what Bach needs is flow. I have developed my views on that on the Naim forum, but I may reprint it here. It is gesture (just like in his 'Cello Suites) that it is all about. How do you convey the flow? In very short phrases? In very long phrases? I like the meandering sparkling brook of a brisk tempo in the allemandes, where music is lifted in the first note and only gets dow to earth at the end of a section; that is exactly what Rousset does. Believe me, it is quite difficult: much more so than what Rannou does, because you have very few metric beacons: You lift the phrase and carry it to the end; it is far easier to take a few breaths during the phrasing: you know where you are, and it becomes similar to olympic gymnastics: there is a beginning and ending to every imposed exercise, so you can breath in between.
That is why I value Walcha's, Gilbert's, Moroney's or Rousset's approaches: they are far more subtle. And you actually get more musical meaning than with Rannou's heavy handed approach, Koopmans's brutal one, Staier's indifferent velocity approach or even Richter's (I mean Karl, but this also applies to Sjietoslav) rough rendering.
I quote from memory, I haven't got the book over here, but I believe François Couperin said: j'aime beucoup mieux ce qui m'émeut àce qui me frappe: I love far more what moves me than what strikes me. Modern day critics and even profesional musicians seem to love to be thunderstruck. I like to be moved.
I hope this answers your question.
When I was very young I was astonished that Leonhardt was so highly regarded. I was trained in a strict way of interpretring music. When I grew up, I grew to like Leonhardt's interpretation to passion, but, at the same time, I could still like (and, indeed, I prefer) the likes of Walcha.
When Gilbert's WTC was out (I listened to it live before recording, so I knew waht was coming), the French magazines, above all, surprised me: they loved Gould histrionics, were quite mad with passion all over leonhardt's spread chords, but though Gilbert 'straightforward'. Now I never undestrood this. Gilbert is far more subtle than Leonhardt, but his decisions are always musical and, to a well trained musician, understandable. He does not like to shock, but to charm and move. Leonhardt's approach is more muscular.
The doubt lingered in my mind: are they (the critics) too gross and rough to understand Gilbert's agogics? Must a harpsichordist pound on the clavier and make two crotchets really quite unequal to be thought expressive?
My conclusion is, unfortunately, positive. Yes: they just don't get it. They get Koopman (who wouldn't?!?); they get Leonhardt (*not* my prefered Bach interpreter). But do they really understand Walcha's agogics?; or, easier to detect, Gilbert's? Or, in the present case, Rousset's? I DO NOT THINK SO. Most critics are frustrated musicians. They were just not good enough. So they like everything overtated (Leonhardt's early recordings were quite grotesque, I thing; see the Vanguard catalogue; he has matured since, but by Jove, he played awfully when he was 30 or so).
For me, a really good interpreter makes music sound. Not the instrument, certainly not himeself. But the music. Now Bach's music, as I have said once or twice really is difficult to get because he plays whith primitives (in the mathematical sense of the origin of derivatives) of music emotion. Just listen to his 12th prelude and fugue of WTC I. If you read the score it is horribly lugubrious, desperate, horrible, tragic music. But all the tragedy is understated. Must one bring it to the fore? I don't think so. One can (I do, when I play to myself). But it is really not necessary: if you understand the music you don't need histrionics. Of course, Leonhardt's version is superlative. But, to my mind, the best ever rendering is Walcha II. Not a hint of histrionics: just plain music, very well played, and a perfect sense of architecture. And all is said. If you really understand the interpretation, it will haunt you for life.
'But he just plays the notes...'. That is completely wrong. You can't feel the bar; all you listen to is a forward movement, an unforgiving one, which leads you, inescapably, to tragedy. Of course, Leonhardt plays with rubatto and so on. Is it better? It is easier to understand. But again, is it better? I do not think so. If anything, it is a triffle more superficial, because he payed attention to all the horrid details, and not so much to the tragic architecture.
Now, in the Suites, where counterpoint is not very important, what Bach needs is flow. I have developed my views on that on the Naim forum, but I may reprint it here. It is gesture (just like in his 'Cello Suites) that it is all about. How do you convey the flow? In very short phrases? In very long phrases? I like the meandering sparkling brook of a brisk tempo in the allemandes, where music is lifted in the first note and only gets dow to earth at the end of a section; that is exactly what Rousset does. Believe me, it is quite difficult: much more so than what Rannou does, because you have very few metric beacons: You lift the phrase and carry it to the end; it is far easier to take a few breaths during the phrasing: you know where you are, and it becomes similar to olympic gymnastics: there is a beginning and ending to every imposed exercise, so you can breath in between.
That is why I value Walcha's, Gilbert's, Moroney's or Rousset's approaches: they are far more subtle. And you actually get more musical meaning than with Rannou's heavy handed approach, Koopmans's brutal one, Staier's indifferent velocity approach or even Richter's (I mean Karl, but this also applies to Sjietoslav) rough rendering.
I quote from memory, I haven't got the book over here, but I believe François Couperin said: j'aime beucoup mieux ce qui m'émeut àce qui me frappe: I love far more what moves me than what strikes me. Modern day critics and even profesional musicians seem to love to be thunderstruck. I like to be moved.
I hope this answers your question.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rousset
Dear RdS
Thanks for a most thoughtprovoking but also a bit provocative contribution. Provocative, as it is dangerous to claim in argumentation that the opponents are "rough" and "frustrated musicians" and "don't understand". In that case almost two generations of highly professional musicians e.g. Leonhardt and his school "don't understand" as well.
I grew up with Walchas interpretations too, and I have always worshipped his ingenious statement of the musical structure, and in the start this was what I needed to become formally familiar with Bachs music. But apart from Walchas stylistic miscalculations as to registration and articulation I grew increasingly aware of his tendency to intellectualize and/or play down the emotional content of Bachs music. As if the "naked" Urtext was a sufficient notation of the music in this respect.
If we look at Bach in a historical content, it is quite clear that his predecessors and models (Frescobaldi,Grigny, Buxtehude, Böhm et.c. et.c.) cultivated a rhetorical approach to music with much attention to details. And this is explicitly apparent in much of Bachs own music, especially in his early works. With time Bachs music became more "regular" from a structural point of wiew, but there is no satisfactory reason to assume that he wanted it to be played less expressive or rhetorical. And as to his ensemble music and sacral music I find it clear, that this was not meant to be played with one-sided attention to structure.
IMHO Bachs music constitutes an unique and ingenious synthesis of intellectual and emotional elements and you can't do justice to his music by playing down one of these elements, neither by intellectualizing the emotional
component nor by underplaying the intellectual component.
It may be a matter of taste how you think the ideal balance should be.
IMO Gilbert and Leonhardt are both within the limits of the near ideal even if they weight a little different.
Moroneys WTC is cerebral but his French suites exceedingly expressive as to details.
Walcha is surely too intellectualized, fascinating as such, but his playing constitutes to my best conviction only a part of the truth about Bach.
Rousset obviously first and foremost wants to impress and resorts to his virtuosity and a rather conforming smooth style without much personal involvement. And he is indeed striking. The brilliant parts of the English suites gain from this. And the intimate movements of the French suites suffer from this at most. To equal his efforts with Walchas is IMO unjust to Walcha, whom I consider to be a most serious musician, even if stylistically a bit misguided.
Why do we listen to professional musicians interpretations of different music, in this case the music of Bach?
Why don't we just read the music in the score and listen to our own interpretation in our inner ear? Those of us who are able to read a score are certainly able to see the structure of the music too, and to realize the intellectual part of the music for themselves. Certainly we listen to others to become moved, and this is about expression and emotion. And this is why the emotional content of an interpretation is so important, even in the music of Bach. I should never claim to have been moved by the intellectual content of an interpretation, I would say that I was mentally stimulated. But even in Bachs music the unsurpassable intellectuallity is but a frame for the emotional content, and the combination of these things is what I call spirituality. And high spirituality is what I expect from an interpretation.
Regards,
Dear RdS
Thanks for a most thoughtprovoking but also a bit provocative contribution. Provocative, as it is dangerous to claim in argumentation that the opponents are "rough" and "frustrated musicians" and "don't understand". In that case almost two generations of highly professional musicians e.g. Leonhardt and his school "don't understand" as well.
I grew up with Walchas interpretations too, and I have always worshipped his ingenious statement of the musical structure, and in the start this was what I needed to become formally familiar with Bachs music. But apart from Walchas stylistic miscalculations as to registration and articulation I grew increasingly aware of his tendency to intellectualize and/or play down the emotional content of Bachs music. As if the "naked" Urtext was a sufficient notation of the music in this respect.
If we look at Bach in a historical content, it is quite clear that his predecessors and models (Frescobaldi,Grigny, Buxtehude, Böhm et.c. et.c.) cultivated a rhetorical approach to music with much attention to details. And this is explicitly apparent in much of Bachs own music, especially in his early works. With time Bachs music became more "regular" from a structural point of wiew, but there is no satisfactory reason to assume that he wanted it to be played less expressive or rhetorical. And as to his ensemble music and sacral music I find it clear, that this was not meant to be played with one-sided attention to structure.
IMHO Bachs music constitutes an unique and ingenious synthesis of intellectual and emotional elements and you can't do justice to his music by playing down one of these elements, neither by intellectualizing the emotional
component nor by underplaying the intellectual component.
It may be a matter of taste how you think the ideal balance should be.
IMO Gilbert and Leonhardt are both within the limits of the near ideal even if they weight a little different.
Moroneys WTC is cerebral but his French suites exceedingly expressive as to details.
Walcha is surely too intellectualized, fascinating as such, but his playing constitutes to my best conviction only a part of the truth about Bach.
Rousset obviously first and foremost wants to impress and resorts to his virtuosity and a rather conforming smooth style without much personal involvement. And he is indeed striking. The brilliant parts of the English suites gain from this. And the intimate movements of the French suites suffer from this at most. To equal his efforts with Walchas is IMO unjust to Walcha, whom I consider to be a most serious musician, even if stylistically a bit misguided.
Why do we listen to professional musicians interpretations of different music, in this case the music of Bach?
Why don't we just read the music in the score and listen to our own interpretation in our inner ear? Those of us who are able to read a score are certainly able to see the structure of the music too, and to realize the intellectual part of the music for themselves. Certainly we listen to others to become moved, and this is about expression and emotion. And this is why the emotional content of an interpretation is so important, even in the music of Bach. I should never claim to have been moved by the intellectual content of an interpretation, I would say that I was mentally stimulated. But even in Bachs music the unsurpassable intellectuallity is but a frame for the emotional content, and the combination of these things is what I call spirituality. And high spirituality is what I expect from an interpretation.
Regards,
Last edited by a moderator:
Rodrigo de Sá
This club's crushing bore
EXPRESSION, RHETORICS AND OVERINTERPRETATION
Dear Pe-Zulu:
I never said a very rhetoric interpretation is a bad one. As a matter of fact, rhetoric majors on broad crescendi and decescendi, and *not* necessarily on details. As you can see from other posts by me, I value a rhetoric approach to French music and, of course, to the stylus fantasticus. With Buxtehude, even if Walcha manages to give his full attention to structure, he is bound to look at detail, too: the musical content obviously requires it.
But, concerning Bach, let us be a little more scholarly. I don't have the references at hand, but I can look for them later. Carl-Philip-Emmanuel Bach said something like this: «X doesn't know how to play my works because he cannot give them expression; whereas he plays my father's works very well indeed, because, in such music, one only has to play the notes».
Another source (one is an independent one, two others stem from CPE again) explicitly state that Bach played fast. Fast and ingenuously, which I take to mean that there was a lot of phrasing.
All this points to a rather Rousset-like interpretation (I agree that Walcha is on another league than Rousset).
So, from historical grounds, not even my claim to structure is supported: a Martin Galling approach is all that the evidence suggests.
WHY STRUCTURE?
Most large Bach works are structurally very complex. This is, perhaps, more evident in his organ fugues than in his harpsichord ones, because the former are longer. Bach thins or swells the sound at will (without registration aids, just by rarefying the counterpoint and not applying the pedals) and even in relatively 'simple' fugues (a minor, for instance, the big one) there is a) a statement of the theme; b) an inner meditation of its meaning; c) a crescendo of desperation; d) a final apotheosis, very striking. This kind of structure is less evident in his shorter harpsichord fugues (but see BWV 904, the e major Book II, f Flat minor book II and many others).
So this is why structure is important: it is self evident in his major works. How do you achieve it? By being aware of a hierarchy of intensity in different parts. Take again the case of the a minor fugue I mentioned. You can play it fast throughout (àla Koopman), in the plenum, with the manual 16' principal engaged and all the bass stops in the pedals. What is made of the b) section? and the transition to c) section? You completely loose its importance and drama if you just go on playing. *These* are the moments to stress the difference.
EXPRESSION
What is meant by that? I think, that in the context of this dialogue, it is the accentuation of short phrases in order to produce a quick impression. Now if you only do that, you get the kind of Monica Hogget's Violin solos or the opening piece of the St. John by Koopman. Everything is important; you cannot tell the trees from the forest and, if you are like me, you will become bored stiff.
What about Leonhardt? I *never* said Leonhardt has no grasp on structure. As a matter of fact I explicitly said that I preferred his Froberger to Mortensen's precisely because of structure. What Leonhardt does is not what he says he does. What he does is to accent the more impressive bits but never so much as to upset the overall arching of the piece (his last WTC I fugue is an excellent example of that). So there is a kind of hierarchy of accents, and this is why he is excellent even if in his earlier records he can quite loose track of the structure (see is b flat minor WTC I fugue, where he pounds every bar, but his first Goldberg - Vanguard - is the prototype of what I am saying; also, listen to him playing the clavichord, and you will be horrified by the constant accenting of the strong beats in a very monotonous way). That said, I usually think Leonhardt plays superlatively well. His more recent appearances show a trend to state structure and not detail - perhaps a little too marked (I listened to him twice these last years: a very monotonous organ recital and a superlative harpsichord one). But that is the kind of evolution one witnesses in a musician: his means of expression become simpler. As another example of that listen to the somber and terrifying 1947 Walcha rendering of Bach's Sei gegrusset Jesu gutig, compare it to the more laidback Alkmaar one and to the almost ethereal Strasbourg version.
OVERINTERPRETATION
So I am not against expression. I favour a structural approach to expression, but I love the typical mature Leonhardt hierarchy of expression that lets the structure shine very evidently without sacrificing details (but not overdoing them).
That said, I believe all major musicians overinterpret Bach. Do you know what was the kind of organ sound Bach liked for his preludes and fugues? A plenum of the kind: Principal 16, 8, 4, 3, 2, VIII mixtur, Trumpet 16 plus Positiv Dulzian 16, Principal 8, 4, 2, 1 1/3, Sexquialter, Sharff, plus Oberwerk principals 8,4,2, Mixture and Zimbel (or Sexquialter) over a Bombarde 32' based Posaune 16', Trumpet 8, plus all the flues and mixtures, possibly with coupling from the Hauptwerk. This is a huge, striking, thundering sound and it is almost impossible to play with beats and articulation: the sound is just too thick. I personally like this kind of sound, but I favour the much more economical interpretations of Walcha, where every note is specifically linked to the next or to the previous one in a well thought off kind of detached, legato or spicato. But play with such a plenum and you will see it is almost impossible to do something of the sort (to begin with the action will be very heavy).
WHAT IS THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION OF BACH?
Of course there is not *one* way. There are several. But I was once convinced by an argument by Isoir: look at his handwriting: all is flow. Look at Buxtehude's: all is haughty and quite angular with big, superbly drawn, stylus fantasticus like arabesques. That is: Bach just *begs* the flowing interpreter. In a very short piece, like the individual movements of the English suites, this results in a kind of uniformity in each dance (save the Sarabandes and, of course, the preludes). In the even shorter French suites, what can you do but flow each dance into the next (with, of course, a few exceptions?
So yes, you have to play the right notes and *make the music flow*. This is quite the contrary to a flat Urtext approach. As I said before, it is much more difficult to do than to have a lot of small phrases linked by breathing points. But the flowing approach is, I think, what Bach asks for.
Let me give an example. In his chorals but chiefly in his organ fugues there is often the case where one note marks the end of a phrase but also the beginning of another; that is: you must accent the note as an 'end' but also as a 'beginning'. It is horribly difficult to do, because you have 3 or 4 more voices to concentrate on. Only a flowing approach can do justice to that. Otherwise you get a kind of hiccup, which is horrible. In his very few Bach organ records, Leonhardt prefers the hiccup. Just listen to his horribly square version of the Von Himmel hoch Variations; and then compare it to the marvelously flowing one by Walcha. To my mind, all is said.
CRITICS
I never said Leonhardt does not understand Walcha. I once was told by Koopman that he preferred the marvelously flowing Kempff's Bach to other harpsichordists'. Of course, Leonhardt hates Walcha's 'objectivity'; and Walcha hated Leonhardt's 'sensuousness'. That is not to say they don't understand. They are just poles apart. No, my criticism goes to the critics. I know some of them. They hardly know any music at all. They usually don't play. Those who do (there were quite a lot of them at Diapason - Adelaïde de Place, Roger Tellart, Michel Roubinet - but they have been replaced with new blood) usually valued Leonhardt *and* Walcha, Rousset *and* Asperen, Gilbert *and* Koopman.
So what am I saying? That at that kind of level, all are marvelous musicians. If one does not understand Rouset's playing there is plenty too choose from. But please don't tell me that Rousset just plays the notes, because that is demonstrably not true: flow is just the contrary to a 'square' approach.
Dear Pe-Zulu:
I never said a very rhetoric interpretation is a bad one. As a matter of fact, rhetoric majors on broad crescendi and decescendi, and *not* necessarily on details. As you can see from other posts by me, I value a rhetoric approach to French music and, of course, to the stylus fantasticus. With Buxtehude, even if Walcha manages to give his full attention to structure, he is bound to look at detail, too: the musical content obviously requires it.
But, concerning Bach, let us be a little more scholarly. I don't have the references at hand, but I can look for them later. Carl-Philip-Emmanuel Bach said something like this: «X doesn't know how to play my works because he cannot give them expression; whereas he plays my father's works very well indeed, because, in such music, one only has to play the notes».
Another source (one is an independent one, two others stem from CPE again) explicitly state that Bach played fast. Fast and ingenuously, which I take to mean that there was a lot of phrasing.
All this points to a rather Rousset-like interpretation (I agree that Walcha is on another league than Rousset).
So, from historical grounds, not even my claim to structure is supported: a Martin Galling approach is all that the evidence suggests.
WHY STRUCTURE?
Most large Bach works are structurally very complex. This is, perhaps, more evident in his organ fugues than in his harpsichord ones, because the former are longer. Bach thins or swells the sound at will (without registration aids, just by rarefying the counterpoint and not applying the pedals) and even in relatively 'simple' fugues (a minor, for instance, the big one) there is a) a statement of the theme; b) an inner meditation of its meaning; c) a crescendo of desperation; d) a final apotheosis, very striking. This kind of structure is less evident in his shorter harpsichord fugues (but see BWV 904, the e major Book II, f Flat minor book II and many others).
So this is why structure is important: it is self evident in his major works. How do you achieve it? By being aware of a hierarchy of intensity in different parts. Take again the case of the a minor fugue I mentioned. You can play it fast throughout (àla Koopman), in the plenum, with the manual 16' principal engaged and all the bass stops in the pedals. What is made of the b) section? and the transition to c) section? You completely loose its importance and drama if you just go on playing. *These* are the moments to stress the difference.
EXPRESSION
What is meant by that? I think, that in the context of this dialogue, it is the accentuation of short phrases in order to produce a quick impression. Now if you only do that, you get the kind of Monica Hogget's Violin solos or the opening piece of the St. John by Koopman. Everything is important; you cannot tell the trees from the forest and, if you are like me, you will become bored stiff.
What about Leonhardt? I *never* said Leonhardt has no grasp on structure. As a matter of fact I explicitly said that I preferred his Froberger to Mortensen's precisely because of structure. What Leonhardt does is not what he says he does. What he does is to accent the more impressive bits but never so much as to upset the overall arching of the piece (his last WTC I fugue is an excellent example of that). So there is a kind of hierarchy of accents, and this is why he is excellent even if in his earlier records he can quite loose track of the structure (see is b flat minor WTC I fugue, where he pounds every bar, but his first Goldberg - Vanguard - is the prototype of what I am saying; also, listen to him playing the clavichord, and you will be horrified by the constant accenting of the strong beats in a very monotonous way). That said, I usually think Leonhardt plays superlatively well. His more recent appearances show a trend to state structure and not detail - perhaps a little too marked (I listened to him twice these last years: a very monotonous organ recital and a superlative harpsichord one). But that is the kind of evolution one witnesses in a musician: his means of expression become simpler. As another example of that listen to the somber and terrifying 1947 Walcha rendering of Bach's Sei gegrusset Jesu gutig, compare it to the more laidback Alkmaar one and to the almost ethereal Strasbourg version.
OVERINTERPRETATION
So I am not against expression. I favour a structural approach to expression, but I love the typical mature Leonhardt hierarchy of expression that lets the structure shine very evidently without sacrificing details (but not overdoing them).
That said, I believe all major musicians overinterpret Bach. Do you know what was the kind of organ sound Bach liked for his preludes and fugues? A plenum of the kind: Principal 16, 8, 4, 3, 2, VIII mixtur, Trumpet 16 plus Positiv Dulzian 16, Principal 8, 4, 2, 1 1/3, Sexquialter, Sharff, plus Oberwerk principals 8,4,2, Mixture and Zimbel (or Sexquialter) over a Bombarde 32' based Posaune 16', Trumpet 8, plus all the flues and mixtures, possibly with coupling from the Hauptwerk. This is a huge, striking, thundering sound and it is almost impossible to play with beats and articulation: the sound is just too thick. I personally like this kind of sound, but I favour the much more economical interpretations of Walcha, where every note is specifically linked to the next or to the previous one in a well thought off kind of detached, legato or spicato. But play with such a plenum and you will see it is almost impossible to do something of the sort (to begin with the action will be very heavy).
WHAT IS THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION OF BACH?
Of course there is not *one* way. There are several. But I was once convinced by an argument by Isoir: look at his handwriting: all is flow. Look at Buxtehude's: all is haughty and quite angular with big, superbly drawn, stylus fantasticus like arabesques. That is: Bach just *begs* the flowing interpreter. In a very short piece, like the individual movements of the English suites, this results in a kind of uniformity in each dance (save the Sarabandes and, of course, the preludes). In the even shorter French suites, what can you do but flow each dance into the next (with, of course, a few exceptions?
So yes, you have to play the right notes and *make the music flow*. This is quite the contrary to a flat Urtext approach. As I said before, it is much more difficult to do than to have a lot of small phrases linked by breathing points. But the flowing approach is, I think, what Bach asks for.
Let me give an example. In his chorals but chiefly in his organ fugues there is often the case where one note marks the end of a phrase but also the beginning of another; that is: you must accent the note as an 'end' but also as a 'beginning'. It is horribly difficult to do, because you have 3 or 4 more voices to concentrate on. Only a flowing approach can do justice to that. Otherwise you get a kind of hiccup, which is horrible. In his very few Bach organ records, Leonhardt prefers the hiccup. Just listen to his horribly square version of the Von Himmel hoch Variations; and then compare it to the marvelously flowing one by Walcha. To my mind, all is said.
CRITICS
I never said Leonhardt does not understand Walcha. I once was told by Koopman that he preferred the marvelously flowing Kempff's Bach to other harpsichordists'. Of course, Leonhardt hates Walcha's 'objectivity'; and Walcha hated Leonhardt's 'sensuousness'. That is not to say they don't understand. They are just poles apart. No, my criticism goes to the critics. I know some of them. They hardly know any music at all. They usually don't play. Those who do (there were quite a lot of them at Diapason - Adelaïde de Place, Roger Tellart, Michel Roubinet - but they have been replaced with new blood) usually valued Leonhardt *and* Walcha, Rousset *and* Asperen, Gilbert *and* Koopman.
So what am I saying? That at that kind of level, all are marvelous musicians. If one does not understand Rouset's playing there is plenty too choose from. But please don't tell me that Rousset just plays the notes, because that is demonstrably not true: flow is just the contrary to a 'square' approach.
bat
Connoisseur Par Excelence
RdS/Pe-zulu! Do you happen to know what kind of tuning Scott Ross used with his WTC recording?
RdS said:
Dear RdS
Certainly I know the quotations from Phil.Em. Bach "he played fast" and "he only needs to play the notes", but these words must be seen in the context of Phil.Em.s own empfindliche style. The fact that they ironically can be used to legitimate the Martin Galling harpsichord machine says it all. You can't use Phil.Em. at all. I refuse to believe that Seb. Bach himself played so fast, that you don't reach to catch the details, but this is what Rousset does. And with the exception of some of the allemandes and sarabandes his movements often has a uneasy rushed character, many might well be called: L'inquietude.
He often makes the impression of favoring the senseless Reinhard Goebel listen-how-fast-we-can-play attitude. And the worst is, that the fast tempo and the smaller attention to details lends the music a more vertical character, like a complex filling out of progressing harmonies. Anyone who has tried to play the suites knows, that they contain much polyphony and imitation, and it is a proof of e.g. Walchas greatness, that even if he plays fast, you are always aware of the counterpoint. This is to much less extent the case with Rousset. Nor is the long "flow" of music IMO particulary apt, as it is a physiological truth, that you (when talking or singing) often need a breath in between, and the phrasing of Leonhardt is much more true to the human nature and the way of speaking . And even if it is more difficult to play in long phrases like Rousset, it is not necessarily more musical. Rousset articulates a lot and IMO stylish, but I miss the sophisticated and expressive articulation of Gilbert and the time to let it unfold. Rousset is brilliant and striking, but in crucial areas he is clearly defeated by Gilbert and Leonhardt.
P.S.: I doubt very much, that the Naumburg-organ is the ideal Bach-organ, as it is claimed to be. Bach probably had some interest in supporting Hildebrand, as he was a good friend. Do you seriously believe, that Bach generally preferred thundering sound to musical expression?
P.S.II: As to critics, I never trust them.
Regards,
Last edited by a moderator:
Bat,
No, I haven't even heard the recording, which (as far as I know) is a live recording. It got strong slashes (direct translated from danish, do you understand the point?) from the critics, but this may be an indication of quality.
As to me I never trust the critics.
Regards,
No, I haven't even heard the recording, which (as far as I know) is a live recording. It got strong slashes (direct translated from danish, do you understand the point?) from the critics, but this may be an indication of quality.
As to me I never trust the critics.
Regards,
Rodrigo de Sá
This club's crushing bore
Dear Pe-Zulu:
Let us just agree that we differ. I listen to a lot of expression in Rousset, you tink it is too fast. That's it.
I think Emmanuel's writings *have* to be considered, as they are almost the only witnesses we have to Bach's playing style (there is another one, that says he played legato - but we have to take that cum grano salis).
About Naumburg. Yes, I believe it shows us the late Bach's tonal ideas. All is there: Very low sound (Bach is well know to have liked low sound), the Fagot 16, the Trumpets 16 in the Hauptwerk, known by him while at Hamburg), the quintas and tierces. I never listened to the Naumburg organ live, but I have a very good recording of its sound. It is very impressive, and indeed musical.
More than that: around Leipzig about 1740, there seems to have been a tendency to have fewer manuals and stronger (and lowr stops). Silbermann even built a 16' Prinzipal manual (with a 16' Fagot, and 5 1/3 mixture) and 32' Untersatz Pedal, but with just two manuals, and some people think this was a trend started by Bach himself.
There was indeed a working relation between Bach and Hildebrandt, but how can one explain that other than Bach liked his organs? Financial questions appart, it seems clear that Bach could have chosen almost any good organ builder (Trost, for one) to have a commercial arrangement with. So, why Hildebrandt? I think one is bound to concede that Bach liked the sound of his organs.
More: the often quoted 16' harpsichord that was claimed to have been transformed after Bach's time, is now suspected to be true. Also, at the Café Zimmermann, Bach seems to have had a 16' harpsichord at his disposal. More, one of his pupils had a 32' pedal harpsichord (!!) with a very heavy sound. Bach himself had the Lautenwerk built by Silberman, and it sounded like a theorbo or a lute (when the nasat stop [the 4'?] was engaged), to a point of fooling professional luthenists.
All this, I think, points towards a very different sound ideal that the one that you (I surmise) and I were exposed to when learning music - the very ethereal sound of a David Rubio harpsichord or of a Ahrend organ.
So, I really must confess that I am convinced that I would not like Bach's style of playing the organ, and I strongly suspect that my taste in harpsichord sound differs widely from Bach's.
I am not quoting because I am away from my usual home, where I have some of the references. But I am inventing nothing.
P.S.: In order to be understandable, I must say I care very little about autenticity. I am completely convinced we will never know how a violin was played in Bach's days; we cannot begin to imagine how difficult it is to play an organ in which the wind is supplied by a human blower (the wind is seldom steady); we have no way of knowing what the pedal technique was (did organists use high heels when playing the pedal (they were smaller than us and their feet overed obove the sharps)? In France it seems so, but what about Bach and Buxtehude - anyway, in most historic organs heels are almost impossible to use [I will explain why if asked]). We don't know how they played the harpsichord because most treatises are contradictory and even historic fingering and, above all, ornamentation are a mystery. Overdotting itself has been questioned outside France (and the arguments are convincing).
In this sense, Leonhardt is no more historic than, say, Gilbert or even Murray Perahia. Leonhardt is an extraordinary musician, and *that* convinces me; and so is Walcha, and I am also convinced; I am not convinced by Galling or Ruzikowa, by Tureck or Gould (the two last mentioned are, of course, totally unhistorical).
As Kirkpatrick said in his book about the WTC, I, too, doubt I would like Bach's playing...
Let us just agree that we differ. I listen to a lot of expression in Rousset, you tink it is too fast. That's it.
I think Emmanuel's writings *have* to be considered, as they are almost the only witnesses we have to Bach's playing style (there is another one, that says he played legato - but we have to take that cum grano salis).
About Naumburg. Yes, I believe it shows us the late Bach's tonal ideas. All is there: Very low sound (Bach is well know to have liked low sound), the Fagot 16, the Trumpets 16 in the Hauptwerk, known by him while at Hamburg), the quintas and tierces. I never listened to the Naumburg organ live, but I have a very good recording of its sound. It is very impressive, and indeed musical.
More than that: around Leipzig about 1740, there seems to have been a tendency to have fewer manuals and stronger (and lowr stops). Silbermann even built a 16' Prinzipal manual (with a 16' Fagot, and 5 1/3 mixture) and 32' Untersatz Pedal, but with just two manuals, and some people think this was a trend started by Bach himself.
There was indeed a working relation between Bach and Hildebrandt, but how can one explain that other than Bach liked his organs? Financial questions appart, it seems clear that Bach could have chosen almost any good organ builder (Trost, for one) to have a commercial arrangement with. So, why Hildebrandt? I think one is bound to concede that Bach liked the sound of his organs.
More: the often quoted 16' harpsichord that was claimed to have been transformed after Bach's time, is now suspected to be true. Also, at the Café Zimmermann, Bach seems to have had a 16' harpsichord at his disposal. More, one of his pupils had a 32' pedal harpsichord (!!) with a very heavy sound. Bach himself had the Lautenwerk built by Silberman, and it sounded like a theorbo or a lute (when the nasat stop [the 4'?] was engaged), to a point of fooling professional luthenists.
All this, I think, points towards a very different sound ideal that the one that you (I surmise) and I were exposed to when learning music - the very ethereal sound of a David Rubio harpsichord or of a Ahrend organ.
So, I really must confess that I am convinced that I would not like Bach's style of playing the organ, and I strongly suspect that my taste in harpsichord sound differs widely from Bach's.
I am not quoting because I am away from my usual home, where I have some of the references. But I am inventing nothing.
P.S.: In order to be understandable, I must say I care very little about autenticity. I am completely convinced we will never know how a violin was played in Bach's days; we cannot begin to imagine how difficult it is to play an organ in which the wind is supplied by a human blower (the wind is seldom steady); we have no way of knowing what the pedal technique was (did organists use high heels when playing the pedal (they were smaller than us and their feet overed obove the sharps)? In France it seems so, but what about Bach and Buxtehude - anyway, in most historic organs heels are almost impossible to use [I will explain why if asked]). We don't know how they played the harpsichord because most treatises are contradictory and even historic fingering and, above all, ornamentation are a mystery. Overdotting itself has been questioned outside France (and the arguments are convincing).
In this sense, Leonhardt is no more historic than, say, Gilbert or even Murray Perahia. Leonhardt is an extraordinary musician, and *that* convinces me; and so is Walcha, and I am also convinced; I am not convinced by Galling or Ruzikowa, by Tureck or Gould (the two last mentioned are, of course, totally unhistorical).
As Kirkpatrick said in his book about the WTC, I, too, doubt I would like Bach's playing...
Last edited by a moderator:
