The Keyboard Music of Bach

Bach's keyboard partitas

I have no time now to write a comparative on the keyboard partitas. But I am studying them (I hope I will recieve my harpsichord in a few months) and comparing versions (I have or had about 10 versions).

So I just want to point out a new version which strikes me as very good (even if it doesn't suprpass Leonhardt's 1st version): Masaaki Suzuki's, released by BIS. I was surprised, because I don't really like his previous keyboard records.

Your thoughts on the partitas would be very welcome.

 

Very informative feedback, thank you all.


:gould:

:gould:

 

Hard to comment, RdS, when you've never actually heard them! Another area to be investigated sometime.

 

RdS,
I was just waiting until you write the comparative.
Then I would have listen to the 200 versions I have and give my feedback.
Oh! actually I don't even know how many versions I have. I am sure I heard them somewhen this year but without knowing that they were keyboard partitas.

I know how long it takes for such a comparative: I promissed one on the Beethoven's 4th but didn't come far up to now

 

leonhardt again

My earliest memory would be of Lipatti playing the B major partita - most everybody had that record when I was a kid.

I have had the blue HMundi box with 1969 recordings by Leonhardt since something like 1975, and I have to confess I have never really felt the need to look for an alternative. However I have a Andras Schiff recording of the French Suites on piano and they are just too boring compared to Leonhardt. (I need not mention the name Gould here.)

I know it's partly laziness. I'm sure you'll be able to point out the ninth string from the middle in Leonhardt instrument is not quite as you feel it should be - pardon, as every man in his right mind knows it should be But I have had no real compirason for more than 25 years now.

Herman

 

I know I was a bit rude, do forgive me, but at least I got some replies. I'll post more at length when I have the time, which isn't now. I'll just say that the Partitas are wonderful and they deserve to be better known than they are.

 

RdS, I've just discovered that I'm a liar - I do have them! I tend to have difficulty with the technical names (partita, etc.), because they don't mean anything to me, and I never remember them. Anyway, it transpires that I have the Pinnock version on Hänssler. This version won a "Gramophone" award some years ago. They sound fine to me, trouble is, I've nothing with which to compare them. I get the impression that Pinnock steers a safe middle course, nothing too outlandish by way of interpretation, but nicely, crisply played.

 

Hi, Tones:

I think your views on the Pinnock version are spot on: nice, but not great. I hope I can get some time tomorrow and post a little bit at lenght.

 

Rds, I had a look at what Penguin chose. Its choices (in order) are

Rousset
Roberts (a piano recording from Nimbus)
Pinnock
Hewitt (piano)

The opinion on Rousset reads:

"Christophe Rousset is an artist who wears his elegance and erudition lightly. The playing has complete naturalness and is obviously the product of a vital musical imagination. This must now be the first recommendation on the harpsichord in this repertoire".

 

Sorry, but wouldn't it be much more fun to discuss the performances we've actually heard with our own ears?

I know I am a relative latecomer to this board, possibly being unfamiliar with GH / ZG traditions, but I don't really see what's the use of quoting from a cd-guide - I noticed the same thing on the Carmina Burana thread.

There's no telling under what kind of constraints the editors arrive at these choices and judgements, but commercial pressures (and availability) are always very much among them.

Plus both Penguin and Gramophone have a heavy British bias - as you already can tell by these four names.

Herman

BTW I have Rousset and the AAM in the Bach Harpsichord Concertos and I think they're fine.

 

Yes, it would, but if you haven't heard them, you haven't heard them. I mentioned them, because RdS, being an aficionado (organist and harpsichordist) probably has, and I was interested in getting his slant.

I personally see no harm whatsoever in citing CD guides. I think we all know what we like and we're only ever going to use such things as a guide as to what's available and what may be worth listening to. There's no tradition, Hermann, just a use of the available material to get the best overall picture. For example, now I've found out about Rousset (of whom, I confess, I'd never even heard); I'll go and investigate him. I notice that Penguin seems to favour him for quite a few Bach harpsichord recordings, so perhaps not quite so British biased as you think. Remember also that many continental recordings are not available in the UK (worse luck).

 

I feel I must write the review, even if I am trying to resist the charms of internet conversation.

I'm not going to review each partita by each interpreter; it would be too long and too hermetic.

That said, these are the versions I am going to comment:

1. Walcha's old EMI recording
2. Karl Richter's Telefunken version
3. Leonhardt's first, DHM, version
4. Pinnock's first, Archiv, recording (which I am told is almost the same as the new set)
5. Leonhardt's second, EMI (now Veritas) version
6. Gilbert's HM set
7. Rousset's (L'Oiseau Lyre)
8. Paul Badura-Skoda's (Astrée)
9. Blandine Verlet's first (Philips) with a reference to the second version
10. Lars Ulrik Mortensen (Kontrapunkt)
11. Andreas Satier's (DHM)
12. Kenneth Weiss's (Satirino)
13. Masaaki Suzuki's (Bis)
14. Richard Troeber (Lyrichord).

As you can see, I consider, with one exception (Richard Trober, clavichord), only harpsichord versions. That is because, unlike the WTC or AoF, they are specifically written for that instrument: there are clearly notes which are meant to be held to provide added brilliance, many arpeggios, and the writing is, generally speaking, very 'harpsichordy'. Of course one can play it on the piano, but the arpeggios don't sound as crisp and the sound id usually somewhat muddled for my taste. Also, the use of a two-manual instrument, with the 4' (an octave above the unisons) generates a briskness of attack no piano can emulate. That doesn't mean I don't the piano versions: Lipatti (EMI) and Pires (DGG) gave us beautiful versions of the 1st, and Burmester (EMI) gave us a very good 6th. Alexis Weissenberg (EMI, again) also had a very good set. I just think the harpsichord suits these pieces better.

I can't possibly consider each one in depth. I'll just browse the general approach of each interpreter.

But first let me introduce the works themselves.

T H E S I X P A R T I T A S

A partita, or partia is the German equivalent (with some differences: partia originally meant a set of variations on a ground or air, but it soon acquired a different meaning) of the French Suite. Suite means 'sequence'; a sequence of dances, usually allemande, courante, sarabande and gigue (Froberger's order is usually different: allemande, courante, guigue, sarabande). Of course, during the 17th century, the suites were appropriated by the lutenists and the harpsichord players, and ceased to be suites for dancing and became suites for listening.

The partitas are the final blossoming of Bach's creations in that regard. He had previously composed a series of smaller scaled suites (more or less accurately grouped as the 'French suites', although they certainly are not very 'French' in style) and the great, if rather heteroclite 'English suites' (where 'English' really is a mystery).

The partitas are rather different from the two above mentioned collections. Chiefly, each partita has a rather unique character, being in every way different from the others. As a matter of fact, even if the Goldberg variations are said to reveal every aspect of Bach's keyboard style – which I think is simply not true – this would be right when applied to the Partitas. You have a fugue (6th), a French ouverture (4th) an accompanied ornate chorale (2nd), a bicinium (3rd), a true toccata (6th again), Sarabandes of all kinds (perhaps the most impressive 'French' Sarabande ever written – again the 6th), the most impressive collection of allemandes, a truly Italian gigue (1st) and so on.

In this sense, the work is very instructive. But, chiefly, it contains some of the very best masterpieces of Bach – for my taste, I would select the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th as unsurpassable works of beauty and expression.

They all consist of an opening movement, followed by the usual bipartite allemande, courante, sarabande and gigue (in the 2nd suite a capriccio, which is really a powerful gigue); between the sarabande and the gigue Bach places 'agréments', minuets, gavottes and such frivolities; only with Bach they are really never frivolous, although I rather think one might as well just omit most of them when playing the pieces. Being bipartite, a reprise is called upon. This is a vexed question: the reprise was used as a memory aid, when the pieces were played only once. In certain cases, the first part is shorter than the second, and you could, for equilibrium sake, repeat the first but not the second part. Or else, you may choose to embellish the repeats. I personally think great care is to be exercised. In certain cases the repeats are out of the question (the great allemande in D major, for instance); in others (say the Sarabande in e minor) my natural tendency would be to repeat the first but never the second, because it is about twice as long as the first and, chiefly, it is so troubled, pathetic and final that repeating it just sounds unmusical. We will address this question when we consider the performances.

FIRST
The first suite (B flat major) is a kind of 'pastorale' work, rather dreamy and sweet. The sarabande is particularly beautiful, and reminds me of a Spring afternoon, a daydream under a beautifull tree). It is no wonder that it is the one that pianist use to play (after the great Lipatti version).

SECOND
The second one (mind you: c minor!) is a very somber and tragic work, beginning with a 'Sinfonia' with powerful dotted chords; this is followed by an anguished prayer (a right hand solo over two voices underneath, played in the second manual), which leads to a powerful fugato which stormingly leads to powerful dotted chords that end the Sinfonia in an answer to the beginning. This kind of moods – sad, despairing, urgent, begging or defeated characterize the whole partita, even the lighter moments – the aforementioned agréments. It ends with a powerful capriccio.

THIRD
The third (a minor) is a reflexive, introspective and slightly melancholy piece. I wonder why pianists do not seem too anxious to play it: it does sound wonderfully on the modern grand piano. The fantasia is a beautiful invention like piece. The sarabande is particularly striking, and it really is a mysterious piece: how do you play it? It doesn't sound like a sarabande at all. Some players (Walcha, for instance, played them as a tortured and sharp movement); but you can also play it in a reflexive mood (and, indeed, most people do just that). Even the Burlesca and the Scherzo (rather difficult to play) suggest an agitated performance; and the final gigue is extremely powerful (but Leonhardt's influence makes many performers play it as a quasi-lamento). So it is an enigmatic partita. You can play it crisply and powerfully or as a dramatic introspective lament; considering all the a minor pieces Bach wrote for the organ and harpsichord, I would suggest the most difficult of ways: a powerful introspective piece of music.

FOURTH
The fourth is one of the most radiantly beautiful of Bach's keyboard works. It opens with an astoundingly beautiful and radiant French ouvertoure; a very lyrical (and very long) allemande follows suit and really is one of the most magic bits of Bach. The adjective 'radiant' keeps coming to my mind. It reminds me of the beginning of Spring in Portugal, when bright white clouds rush by against a very deep blue sky, nature is at its greenest and flowers begin to blossom everywhere. It is crisp, magic, astoundingly beautiful. To my mind, no piano can ever equal the sound of a sweetly ringing harpsichord here. The entire partita is 'radiant' – that adjective again. The bright and light courante, the exquisitely beautiful sarabande (in which the harpsichord really dictates the tempo: you have to wait until the sound extinguishes [bars 2 and 30, the high a, and bar 16, the high e] before you carry on with the semiquavers). The work ends with a very vivacious gigue, a kind of 'envoy', that brings you down to earth and puts a solid and boisterous end to the reverie.

FIFTH
Partita 5 is a perfect example of Bach's use of G major: brilliant, gay (in the old meaning of the word), fast and dazzling. It begins with a Praeambulum, where fast strongly diatonic semiquavers alternate with unexpected crisp chords. The allemande is more dreamy, but still very sunny (it is also very difficult to play the left hand legato with old fingering technique, which perhaps suggests that it was a brisker piece than the interpretation of most modern day players would suggest). The courante is a happy, diatonically flowing piece. The Sarabande is a very relaxed and sensuous piece, which might be played 'languissament', as Couperin had it for one of his pieces. The minuet that follow it is a precious and very easy to play piece, but the following passepied is ravishing. It all ends with a very capricious and somersaulting gigue, a fitting end for this sunny partita.

SIXTH
Now for the last and, to my mind, by far the most impressive of all partitas (e minor). It begins with a somewhat buxtehudean style toccata, by the fugue that follows is a typical Bach fugue: a powerful, three voiced one, which you might consider playing fast and without ever releasing the tension, even when it modulates to major: the true release comes at the end, with the return of the toccata, quite unabashedly in stylus fantasticus (very free and dramatic) and with a terrible sense of fury and darkness. The following allemanda is dramatic, powerful, deeply poignant and ends terribly, with an ascending and then a downward sweep of pointed crochets, couched in an important rhythmic semiquaver, two demi semiquavers pattern (more on this latter). The courante is a dialog of an offbeat treble over a more or less regular flow of triplets on the bass (3/8), sometimes with the strong beat omitted, the whole being a rather unsettling result. There follows an air, which musicological (and musical) reasons indicate should played after the Sarabande. The Sarabande itself is the pinnacle of the whole partita: I cannot find, in all the repertoire for the harpsichord, such a tormented, anguished, tortured and expressive piece (perhaps Froberger's Tombeau of Monsieur Blancheroche). I would play it with the full resources of the harpsichord (8+8+4, that is, the three sets of strings) and omitting the second repeat. Again, the important paam, papapam rhythm makes its appearance, but the piece grows more and more unstructured, and rhythmical freedom is more and more required. It is just like a nightmare, the most pathetic, expressive and ominously anguished harpsichord piece I know. After this, the two gallanterien may be played as a sort of relief, but I would just jump to the final gigue. Now there is a very silly debate going on as to how the rhythmical rendering of the notes should be. The time signature is a strange variation of the allabreve time signature: ¢. It is printed as Ø, but with a vertical slash. No one really knows what that means. And many people chose to interpret it as meaning that the pa-paam, pa-paam, should be played paraaam, paraaam, that is, triple time. This rendering (which is NOT written) forces one to play the above mentioned and ever present parapa parapa pam (which is actually written) as pararararararam, that is, you do without rhythmic inequality and just play triplets. Now, Ø probably means that you just play not twice as fast as is written (the meaning of ¢), but three times as fast. Which is entirely in keeping with the nature of the piece and presents a fitting ending to this tormented and somber partita. Played as written, the effect if flabbergasting: You have a defiantly aggressive, chromatic and dissonant theme which just blows you away. The second section presents the inversion (what goes up now goes down and vice-versa) of the theme, but the 'straight' theme reasserts itself in the end, towering over the whole drama in an unequivocal victory.

So those are the partitas. Lets now examine the versions. The next post will do just that.

 

THE VERSIONS


1. Walcha's old EMI recording

I mention Walcha first only because his was the first unequivocally good recording of the set (other than Kirkpatrick's which I heard only fragmentarily when I was a very young boy).
His version is not 'historically informed': the tempi are just what is suggested by the time signatures and the note durations themselves. Therefore you get fast allemandes – which no one does nowadays – and the strange signs in, for instance, the first chord of the sarabande of the 6th partita, are ignored and the chord is just played full, all the notes together, and not as a very complex mixture of a arpeggiated chord and an actual arpeggio. For some musicians this simply rules the version out. I couldn't care less, if the result is, as it IS, an extraordinary one. Not every partita is totally convincing (for instance, I don't like the way he registers the 2nd and the 3rd), but the fourth and sixth are pure masterpieces. In fact, I never heard such a powerful sixth. Just for that, those of you who are fond of vinyl might as well start searching.

2. Karl Richter's Telefunken version

This is also a version predating the informed readings of Bach. Some of the partitas are odd (the first one is played tragically!), but I will never forget the 6th Sarabande: incredible! Other than that, it is ponderous and the harpsichord is rather odd.

3. Leonhardt's first, DHM, version

This was the first historically informed version. As a matter of fact, rather *too* informed. For instance, the dotted rhythms of the 2nd partita are played overdotted (instead of paam, pa-paam, you get: paaaam, paraaaaam), and the harpsichord (the Skowroneck copy of Dulcken) is way too bright. Also, Leonhardt is a severe, somber and austere musician. Therefore, you might expect the 'happy' suites to suffer. Indeed they do: they sound a trifle dark. But in spite of that, the playing is supernaturally marvelous. I really don't know how one can be at the same time so rhythmically free and rhythmically precise at the same time. If you follow the score, you'll just be amazed and – indeed – subjugated. Harpsichord playing doesn't get better than that. Also, he strikes the exact balance between repeating or not repeating the reprises. The 3rd and 6th partitas are extraordinary. A must have: Search, beg, steal. You MUST have it.

4. Pinnock's first, Archiv, recording (which I am told is almost the same as the new set)

I bought it when I got my first CD player. I was mildly disappointed. It is very well played, but rather soulless. The 6th partita's gigue is played with the awful triplets, and generally is not the kind of music Pinnock really likes. A very so-so version. I was told that the new Hansler version is almost a copycat of the previous one. I therefore refrained from buying it. The 4th and 5th partitas are rather good. The harpsichord is, I think (I lent the record to a friend, or else I gave it to someone: I don't seem able to find it) a copy of a French double, with a rich, mellow sound

5. Leonhardt's second, EMI (now Veritas) version

This is a remake. In a sense, it is better. The harpsichord (a copy of a Mietke, a harpsichord Bach may actually have owned!) sounds very well (rather better than the original historic instrument, which sounds awful) if a trifle subdued. His playing is more economical, less showy, and much more elegant. But he just omits the reprises completely. I usually welcome this, but some pieces just lose their balance, and sound too short. Rather good, but not as good as the first set, in my opinion.

6. Gilbert's HM set

Gilbert's playing is very different from everybody else's. There is a sort of mist (I think it is a searched effect and not the result of technical inferiority) and both the instrument used and the recording engineer emphasized this. Vinyl lovers will love it, but a harpsichord doesn't sound like that. It is a very artful version, very good and always interesting. But he plays most of the reprises. This can lead to some boredom. For instance, the allemande of the 4th suite is superlative – the best of the discography, and you really warm to it until when you expect you go to the second part, you get the reprise, really similar to the first rendering… Well, of course you yawn. The first, second, third and fourth partitas are extremely good. The sixth is impressive (the allemande is really extraordinary) and then you get the dreaded triple time gigue. Oh well… The harpshichord is the very famous Couchet(?)-Blanchet-Taskin.

7. Rousset's (L'Oiseu Lyre)

A pupil of both Leonhardt and Gilbert, but rather closer to Gilbert. It is a sort of leaner version than Gilbert's, but in general it is rather similar, if perhaps a little more exciting. Most of the partitas are good (of course you get the repeats: boring), and you still get the horrible triple time 6th gigue. But rather good. The harpsichord is a beauty: a copy of a Hemsch (a German working in France during the 18th Century, but within French tradition and taste).

8. Paul Badura-Skoda's (Astrée)

Paul Badura-Skoda is not really a harpsichordist. Pianists think they can sit at the harpsichord and conquer it at once. Now this record shows this is not true. He lacks the required precision and doesn't really know how to make the instrument expressive. His version is interesting because he researched the actual *real* version of the partitas and the real meaning of the embellishment signs (he published a very interesting book on the subject). He also plays a very interesting instrument: a huge Kirkman (a builder working in England) with a dull but powerful sound. He makes *all* the repeats, and plays them both times in the same way, rather metrically. An interesting version, but also a big yawn. And he actually is rather less historical than he says: the last gigue is well played, but at the very last part he doubles the bass line in octaves. A typical pianist trick. Ah well. The French, always in search of 'le nouveau' gave him a prize for the recording. It is totally undeserved in my opinion. He should learn how to master a harpsichord in the first place.

9. Blandine Verlet's first (Philips) with a reference to the second version (Naïve)

Blandine Verlet is the typical unbalanced player. Her Bach always seems close to total disarray. Her first version was too free in terms of rhythm, but it was sometimes convincing (alas, the horrible triplets). The second version is a downright catastrophe (the last gigue is played as written, this time). I don't mean it is bad. It is good for her, no doubt, and I respect subjectivity. But I think it was a mistake to record it. If I listened to her at her home, I would think: typical of her. Mad but somehow right for her. As a public recording I think it is quite unbalanced. The phrasing is enormously long, and long bits of music are just gobbled down in an attempts to make long phrases sing. But Bach doesn't work like that (although Walcha makes you wonder). So, if you buy it, please treat it with respect: you are listening to the secret emotions of a very good, if perhaps misguided, harpsichordist.

10. Lars Ulrik Mortensen (Kontrapunkt)

Mortensen is an interesting interpreter. He makes the harpsichord (a marvelous Rückers copy) ring continuously, and you get a shower of embellishments which the composer never wrote down. It is admirable, and technically very difficult. But I personally don't like the result: too much ornament and too little structure. His partitas are good, perhaps even very good, by I personally don't like them because of the Technicolor effects. You must make your own mind. Some people just love it.

11. Andreas Staier's (DHM)

In my previous post I called Staier Satier. It was just a misspelling, but it suggested he might be French. He is German, and very much so (in the negative sense of the word: there is also a very positive sense: Bach was, after all, a German, so were Kant, Goethe and a lot of other geniuses). The French usually go beserk with him. I honestly can't understand why: he plays if fast, dry and unemotional, takes all (but really all) the reprises, and plays a dull copy of a Mietke. I personally think he totally lacks subtlety and good taste. You may wonder why I am so frank – really bordering on violent. But Staier himself usually says what he thinks about his fellow musicians (which is usually negative), so I think it is not misplaced to emulate him. Honestly, one version to forget about.

12. Kenneth Weiss's (Satirino)

An American that studied in Paris. The French love him. I bought his partitas because I read a hearty recommendation in a French magazine. Chauvinism, I thought when I listened to him the first time. But it was just after listening to Leonhardt's first version. I am listening to it right now. How does he fare? I think for once the French reviewer was right. He plays the usual copy of a Mietke (at least it sounds like one, the booklet is silent about that), but it sounds a little brighter than usual and the playing is extremely good. Particularly, the balance between observing the repeats and not doing it is almost perfect and there isn't a single movement which is misguided. I would place some versions above it, but if you manage to buy it, go for it. It is getting scarce. Very good rendering.

13. Masaaki Suzuki's (Bis)

This was a very good surprise. I like Suzuki cantata series very much, because he seems to have captured what the westerners have lost: religiosity. I feared that the continuous jubilation he displays in the cantatas would harm his solo recordings. And I feared right. I was sorely disappointed by his inventions and symphonies, by his WTC I and even by his Fantasia Chromatica (although it is almost madly exciting); I was frankly disgusted by his Organ Mass. I bought the Partitas just because I wanted to make sure and, to be honest, because my wife seems to like him (she is a Christian and therefore likes the religiosity of the Cantatas). I was very surprised to find I liked the discs. The harpsichord is a Rückers copy by Kroesbergen – well, it doesn't sound like a Rückers at all, but it has some dynamic capabilities. People who don't like bright harpsichords may like this one. I might find that his repeats are not exactly what I would like, but the version is a very good one and a good introduction to the work. Very, very good: brisk but singing at the same time, a rhythmical approach that manages to keep the singing style that Bach expressly recommended.

14. Richard Troeber (Lyrichord).

I kept this one last because it is not played on the harpsichord but on the clavichord. For those unacquainted with ancient instruments, the clavichord is a sort of very primitive piano: each string is very thin and damped until you strike it with a metal tangent that is under direct control of you finger; the part of the string between the tangent and the nut (the beveled part that raises the string over the soundboard) begins to vibrate; there is a sharp attack and a very faint vibration, all made of a very soft silvery powder of sound. Once you release the key, the string is damped at once. Of course this allows you to do two things: you may, with your fingers, stress the string, by pressing the key harder, and you can manage a vibrato by varying pressure on the key and therefore stress on the string (or, if you are not that skilful, to go out of tune); the second thing is that if you increase or decrease the *velocity* (not the pressure), you can make the string sound louder or softer. It is, therefore, the most expressive keyboard instrument in existence. Of course, this all happens within a tiny dynamic range: if you close the door and play the clavichord as loud as you can, nobody will be able to listen to it outside the room.
Now Richard Troeber, an American clavierist, is intent in showing the resources of the clavichord. He recorded the Tocattas and the Partitas. How does he fare? In general terms, rather well: he is very expressive, has impeccable intonation and is an accomplished virtuoso. I wouldn't however recommend this as the only version to own on the following grounds. First, the partitas were clearly composed with the harpsichord in mind. Second, he plays *all* the repeats. Of course, the clavichord allows him to make expressive changes, but I am still not convinced by the option of playing all the repeats. And last, I don't honestly think he ranks with the likes of Walcha, Leonhardt or Gilbert.

BOTTOM LINE:

Which version to get first? This is very difficult question. It depends on what you like in Bach. If you like flowing curves and a very elegant phrasing, get Gilbert's or Rousset's. Bear in mind you will lose the end of the 6th partita. If you like a forceful and powerful version, try to get Leonhardt I; if you can't, get Leonhardt II. Kenneth Weiss is a good objective and very well played version. Suzuki will get you a little more passion. Mortensen will please the lovers of a beautiful sound and an ornate musical line. The lovers of eccentricities will get a very good version buying Troeber's. If you can get hold of Walcha's, grab it: you'll never get better versions of the 6th and 4th.

So now I wait for your comments.

 

Only one response is possible, RdS - BRAVO!! As a non-musician, I was fascinated. Now that my hi-fi buying has come to an end (apart for replacement of things that fall apart), I have more money to devote to what matters, namely, music. I shall perhaps divert some from the cantata craze to explore stuff like this.

 

Tones: Thank you for your encouragment.
Yes, music is more interestng than hifi. Although it is rather difficult to actually talk about music, I think it is worth the effort, because it is one way of interesting people. Of course, the post were huge (and they haven't been grammar checked, which I noticed sadly this morning), but I hope they can be a good bases for searching: stating one's opinions frankly is, I think a good method: if the reader disagrees, he will think about the music.

The partitas are not very easy music. But they are SO wonderful they deserve a little effort.

 

Would you find it ironic that I may end up buying a David Rubio copy of the Taskin (the same as Leonhardt's), overbright as it undoubtedfully is?

I mention it just to bring an end to the silence in the classical music forum... Quite off topic, of course.

t:

P.S.: Well, the smilie went wrong, so I guess that means you *cannot* be off topic in this forum.

So:



Pretty, isn't it?

 

Yes! I'd like one in the lounge just as a nice piece of craftmanship, even if it never played a note!

 

Ah, but you probably would play some notes. Harpsichord tone is so beguilingly beautiful you'd find yourself in no time trying to learn small Bach pieces (from the Anna Maddalena Book - some are easy and very beautiful) and from there, who knows?

The first time you strike a harpsichord key, there is a strong possibility you're hooked for life.

[Proselytist mode off].

 

Aha, RdS, I'll never be in the position to afford such a gorgeous thing, so the danger of striking a note and getting hooked is non-existent! Perhaps this is just as well, with two young ladies (hope springs eternal) to feed, clothe and educate.

 

Well... This will surely teach me not to write in depth on any subject over here! I spent a lot of time - well, an evening - doing that bit, just because I thought I owed it to the forum, and I only got ONE (encouraging, I'm glad to say) answer...

Is it possible that no one else cares for the keyboard partitas? At the very least you might have said I had got it wrong!

My harpsichord will arrive in early January. It is the David Rubio - same crop as Leonhardt's in the 1st book of the WTC: as a matter of fact, I don't even know if it is not the very same instrument (re-voiced, restrung and readjusted, of course: thirty years is a long time)!!!

That will surely keep me away from the Internet.

Goodbye for now.