The Keyboard Music of Bach

Johnny:

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, they are the same as the pricey version, only they split Book I and II. So be careful not to order Book I or II twice!

Herman is right I think: harpsichord is more convincing (and if you buy the Leonhardt one, you will be listening to MY very own harpsichord - but Gilbert's is more beutiful and better recorded).

Nevertheless, while I'll recommend yoiu steer clear of Gould, there are two very good verions of the WTC on the piano. The first one is, of course, Swjetoslav Richter's. The sound, however, is rather bad (but it is cheap). You get a very good understanding of the way a fugue works.

The other one is Evgeni Koroliov's (Tacet). The sound is much better and even if at times it is over romantic and overdone, it is quite good. The second book has just been released.

If you must chose between Gilbert and Leonhardt, just borrow some money and get both of them. If I were to be really pressed for a choice, I would perhaps go for Leonhardt's.

 

Choices, choices!

Oh, dear! And it was your words that had me hunting the 'net for the Gilbert! What's a boy to do?

 

Sorry!!!

Well, Gilbert's is a more objective version, beautifully played, in a marvelous instrument. It is very Bachian, elegant and curvilinear but yet discreet. There isn't a simple piece I would say is 'wrong'.

Leonhardt is another kind of musician: somber, fierce, and very impressive. The great minor mode works are very impressive; the lighter ones are sometimes a bit lacking in sparkle.

I would say Gilbert's is a better harpsichord introduction to the work. But you will want to have Leonhardt's.

Hope this clears the mess I created!

 

Gilbert and Leonhardt

Thank you for explaining clearly what are the differences between these harpsichord intrepretations of the WTC, but, of course, I'm still left with a choice to make (especially given that I was originally looking for an excellent modern piano version!). I think initially I'll go for the Gilbert, if only because I can get the lot for £20 .

Meanwhile, back on the piano version, you recommended in an earlier post the Evgeni Koroliov. What about the Angela Hewitt on Hyperion, who seems to have collected lots of accolades from the Penguin Guide and Gramophone, etc., or should I not be mislead by such things (having spent most of my life buying LPs and now CDs on such recommendations, this might be difficult!)?

 

Well, listened to 3 other interpretations. I post about them just to be thorough.

The are by Robert Hill (Hyperion), Ketil Haugsand and Lucy Carolan.

The Hill version is very ... English. Contained, correct, quite elegant. A good one, but I don't find myself rushing to listen to it often. Of course, all the repeats and the horrible triple time last gigue. He plays a Mietke copy, with the usual caressing tone.

Carolan's is a different one. I found it disappointing. But that may be because of what I expected. I had read that she played a Mietke and a Gräbner copy. Now a Gräbner, being very dark and yet reedy, would be an ideal choice to play the 2nd and th 6th partitas. Also, she wrote about the question of the 6th gigue, and concluded (rightly, I think) that there are more musicological reasons to play the double time version rather than the triple time. She just says that the triple time one is easier to play. I fully expected to listen at least to the two versions, and on the Gräbner.

As it is, she just plays the tripe time, used a strange copy of a Taskin (completely unTaskin like) and a strange copy of a Mietke, with a bright sound…

All the repeats, and I was rather disappointed.

Haugsand's version is interesting because of organological considerations. He plays a copy of the Mietke (by Skowroneck himself!!), but much more researched. He mixes the construction of the Mietke and the Zell (polar opposites in terms of sound, but it seems the construction principles are similar) and the result is rather odd: it does sound like a mixture of a Zell (bright) and a Mietke (very delicate).

He also plays the two versions of the 6th gigue, preferring – as I think he should, on musical and musicological grounds – the double time version.

But he also plays all the repeats, and I was not convinced by his short, concentrated, slightly abrupt phrasing. Sometimes it is beautiful, sometimes it is rather odd. Probably a question of habit, but I didn't find myself very entranced. Perhaps the harpsichord doesn't help him a lot.

All in all, a solid version, interesting but not ravishing, well played, and the repeats are well ornamented – but anyway, one does feel he had said all there was to be said the first time…

 

Sorry, Johny, I missed your reply. I don't know Hewitt's version. I only know some Tocattas she played. I was not very happy about them.

Well, the British press had rave reviews about her. But them neither the French nor the German were so excited about it.

What I can say (WITHOUT listening to the WTC) is that she plays very well, and is generally faithful to the spirit of the text.

 

Bach's English Suites

I'd like to mention a brand new recording of the Bach ENGLISH SUITES by Christophe Rousset.

The big companies are investing little or nothing in this kind of repertoire, but new ones are filling this gap. In this instance, it is a label called AMBROISIE (see [email protected]). The issue is lavishly composed and the notes are interesting. But let's go to what really matters – the interpretation.

Rousset's previous Bach records were interesting. He was the pupil of Asperen and Leonhardt, but he felt the agogic and rhythmic approach of the Dutch school was not appropriate for him. He therefore received further formation with Kenneth Gilbert.

In his early recordings one could quite easily detect Gilbert's influence: the musical phrase reigned supreme and, in particular with French harpsichord music, it was just sublime.

With Bach, I think he showed less brilliance. His Goldbergs were very good but not outstanding, and his Partitas were, again, quite good but less interesting than, say, Leohnardt's or Gilbert's.

With this record he seems to have come of age. He has a very clear individuality, and his English suites are his own version – you cannot sense Leonhartd's or Gilbert's influence. It is Christophe Rousset, the master, not the former pupil of A or b you are listening to.

Let's start with the instrument he chose. It is a Johannes Rückers 1632 remade in France in 1745. It is, thus, a Flemish French double. The sound is a marvel: brilliant but with body and deep basses and the precision only French keyboards allow.

As to version itself. The English suites were never very easy music. There is a big Prélude, usually composed latter than the rest of the suites and having a different style (they remind one more of the Concerto form than actually of the Prelude form) from the subsequent dances, very French in character. The suites are very taxing in terms of keyboard skill and of music architecture. They also present the big problem of the reprises – except for the Preludes, every dance is bi-partite and is presented as AABB. The question is whether one must actually make the repeats or just play AB. As I mentioned when I considered the Partitas, the problem is a real one, because if one observes all the repeats the music is bound to be boring in the extreme.

Rousset solves the problem in the most musicological convincing fashion; he repeats the sections, but ornaments them profusely. We therefore get what Bach probably intended in the first place: AA'BB'. The English suites are the obvious place to make this, because some of the ornamented repeats are actually written down, so one knows how Bach ornamented his works.

He plays all the suites at a rather brisk tempo – as Bach himself was said to do – and in a very flowing manner – as Bach recommended one should: cantabile. Therefore you listen to a continuous flow of music, never heavy, never actually touching the ground before they end; even the repeats seem to be organically linked by this marvelous phrasing.

The Preludes are all wonderful, the allemandes just perfect, the courantes are really flowing, the rather profound sarabandes are quite the best I ever heard, the 'agréments' are lovely, the final Gigues are convincingly concluding and each suite has its own character and overall architecture. Wonderful.

There is not a single case where I would say the interpretation can be bettered. All seems so perfect, so musical and so beautifully expressive you feel you are listening to the archetype of this score rather to an interpretation.

A masterful feat indeed: Leonhardt's (1st one, Philips, 2nd one HMV, now both Sony I think) and Gilbert's (HM) are clearly defeated here. And even the fabulous version of Murray Perahya is less convincing.

This one is a must buy, I think.

 

I'm getting precious little feedback concerning this one!

See for yourself here or, if you are in a hurry, here.

If you don't like the harpsichord, try the Perahia discs.

Perhaps you are not very cognizant (I must be tired, writing like this!!) with the works.

Well, they are extremely interesting ones, I'd say they rank among the most impressive of Bach's keyboard works. They are written in a very frenchified style, with beautiful 'sarabandes graves', full of emotion and pathos; the preludes are very taking, and the allemandes are just lovely.

The sound better in the harpsichord (relative to the piano, of course) because the writing is very French, with many trills and arpeggios.

Try to have a listen.

 

Hello all,
This my first post on ZG forum. I'm impressed with overall high level of discussions and well written, in-deep posts of such knowledgeable members like RdS and others. I believe, ordinare music lovers like me have good opportunity here to gain a better understanding of classical music and to fill some educational gaps.
Now, about partitas interpretations. Rather strange, RdS does not mention Kirkpatrick's version. I have Archiv's 1958 vinyl record and I love it! Tempos are rather slow, no exaggerated emotions, sound is light and crisp. Intelligent, classical, well thought after performance, but not museum-like in any way. 2th partita's sinfonia, for instance, - strong, tragic, but no despiar or complaints. This kind of music just makes me feel better, sort of reconcillation with existence.
Concerning K. Richter's version: I cannot agree with you it is ponderous, I believe his performance gives a sence of strong logical linkage between parts in whole cicle. You suppose the sound is odd - I also found it on the dark side, but, how it is possible with Neupert, Bach-modell cembalo?

 

Welcome to ZeroGain, Livemusic! You'll find there's room for all levels here, from the merely enthusiastic (such as myself) to the very knowledgeable (RdS and GrahamN), united in a love for great music.

Your question is best answered by RdS, assuming of course that he can tear himself away from his harpsichord - he acquired one recently and I think he has managed occasionally to fit in some time for eating and sleeping, and even lecturing (he's a university professor, but not of music).

 

LiveMusic:

Thank you indeed for your kind words. And Tones is being modest! Welcome to Zero Gain!

I didn't mention Kirkpatrick only because I only heard it once, about 25 years ago! I remember it was a somber version, but very musical (as he usually was).

The Neupert Richter played was heavily tampered with and had nothing of the shrill brilliance of the Neupert original Bachmodell. For one thing he used to have a pedalboard fastened to it (with some heavy nails!!) so that he could play Bach's organ music. Also, I think the plectra (the small 'nails' that pluck the strings) were not the usual delrin ones, but leather. If they were delrin they were certainly trimmed and rounded at the plucking point. The sound was very dark, and he reveled in 16+4' combinations.

I also liked his musicianship, (not always - he was rather unpredictable - but it is not to everybody's taste. He played at top speed many times and once I actually witnessed a total disaster: during the courante of the 1st partita he got it wrong and had actually to stop and pick the music strands slowly and then accelerate again to maximum speed.

His 6th partita is wonderful, especially the Sarabande: the more powerful version I know.

 

I received Hewitt's 1st book yesterday and listened to about half of it. It is not what I expected, but I will listen to it more carefully.

 

WTC: Harpsichord & Piano

Dear RdS

I have now got the Gilbert (both Books, I don't believe in doing things by halves!), and am indeed deeply enamoured of the sound of the (your?!) harpsichord: thank you for putting me on to it! I've only had time for one play-through, so won't comment yet on the wider merits of Bach's WTC on the harpsichord...

I have also ordered (again, on your recommendation) the WTC on piano by Koroliov: both suppliers (one for Book 1, the other for Book 2, both via the 'net), don't have them in stock, so I've got to wait (not very patiently!) for them.

John

 

Dear Johnny:

I'm very happy you liked Gilbert's version. I am struggling with time, and have not yet had the leisure to listen to Hewitt's version with enough concentration.

Thank you for reporting.

(P.S.: - No, Gilbert's WTC harpsichord isn't my instrument - Leonhardt's WTC1 is (perhaps, no one seems to know for sure if it is this or another one). I wish I had the Gilbert one, though: not only it is a perfect marvel, but I'd make a fortune just by lending it for recordings; it is getting to be one of the best loved harpsichords in the world!).

 

I'm happy to report that DIAPASON commented on this record - flying colours - and they recommend it as the best version of the English Suitesnow available. They sometimes get it right!

 

So, what do you think of Jonathan Freeman-Attwood's not quite so favourable review in Grammophone's March issue?

"Virtuoso technical delivery, certainly, but musical superficiality is in the ascendant".

BTW I followed your recommendation but cannot really comment on what Mr. Freeman-Attwood is saying as this is only my second version of the English Suites (the other is by Perahia) and so far I resisted and did not get Ms. Hewitt's version...

 

Hi, mtl

All I can say is that I do not agree with him. I can't even understand where he finds Rousset superficial - even comparing him to Leonhardt's two versions I find his allemandes and sarabandes much more profound.

There is, perhaps, a reason I can think of: Rousset plays the allemandes at a rather brisk tempo. That can lead the uninformed to think of superficiality, but as far as we know, the allemande was not necessarily a slow dance in Bach's days. On the contrary, the writing of the pieces themselves seems to imply a rather fast tempo. As, as is well known, Bach used to play his music rather fast and 'artfully' (that's the only description of his playing we have, by the way; he himself asked for a cantabile way of playing the harpsichord).

Nevertheless, not having read the review in question it is hard for me to understand the 'superficiality' qualification.

Now that you have the record, just listen to the Sarabandes of the 2nd 3rd, 5th and 6th suites and to the perfect structure and agogic of the preludes (the 4th is actually the only version that complies with Bach demanded: 'vitement' (sic); and the marvelous 6th is just perfect: a lengthy lamento like introduction that is suddenly replaced by a very complex allegro. In fact, I'm browsing through the record and the partitions as I write this and I cannot understand the comment at all.

Perhaps Jonathan Freeman-Attwood's comments refers to the ornaments that Rousset adds in the repeats? If so he is completely wrong: Bach actually asked that the repeats be ornamented and he actually wrote down the ornamentation of some of them.

This is slightly unstructured, but I am very short on time.

To my mind, you have the two best versions available: Rousset's and Perahia's. Try to listen to the second Leonhardt version: that is a good comparison, because it used to be considered the reference version.

So I can only say that Mr. Freeman-Atwood and myself have different opinions.

 

Too bad - I wanted to re-read the review, but a colleague has it at home and Grammofile is out of order at the moment...
Will comment on the review in greater detail once I got it back.

Anyway - yesterday I found a little time to compare Rousset with Perahia and found the two not too far away from each other. Sure, Rousset sometimes takes things a bit swifter - but not dramatically so. But both have this flowing 'swing' to the music (unlike for example Maria Joao Pires in her 1995 recording of the 3rd suite: her sarabande [4'31 (!!)] for example is rather romantically overstated and in general her whole approach is far more heavy-handed than Perahia's or Rousset's).
In the 3rd suite however I found Rousset a bit too restless in the Ière Gavotte - but just slightly so.
Nevertheless I find his interpretation as a whole quite impressive.
Pianists in a way seem to have so much more options to bring music 'alive' - like in that very Gavotte of the 3rd suite with a little crescendo on the tone repetitions etc. (where the harpsichord just fires away a series of notes of the same quality). So I think it's quite a miracle just how fluent and cantabile Rousset's Bach sounds.
Should have more time to listen to it in greater detail and should have a listen to Ms. Hewitt's version of this after all...

But anyway - it's just about a review. And reviews are - and should be - personal opinions of hopefully musically knowledgeable individuals. Take this year's Grammies: I cannot recall having read one good word on MTTs / SFS Mahler's III. and yet it got a Grammy. So what?

 

So, got Grammophone's March issue back in front of me. This is what the said reviewer does not like:

"...settles to his task with dazzling facility, although he tends to push the Bourrees, Minuets and Gigues ... towards tempi that are all too similar. ... distinctions between the personality of each work become blurred; there is a fine line between impressive command and when surface filigree (propelled, it must be said, with exceptional rhythmic control) fails to yield to any reflective nuance struggling to emerge. The 2nd Gavotte of the D minor suite is such a moment where innocent pastoral beauty can manoeuvre its elegant precursor into poignant relief. No chance here as Rousset charges through undeterred.
As in the concerted F major Prelude and the succeeding movements, Rousset rarely yearns to discover what lies behind the notes; even the fantastical inferences of the Sarabande are glibly delivered rather than elevated by slight hesitation, checking or caressing; crucially time is never taken to contemplate a notable turn in the musical argument. Rousset's flair is undeniable but it seems to rely almost entirely on a single mood established from the outset."
After some remarks on moments to admire (Gigue of the G minor suite, opening of D minor Prelude) he ends, musing over Rousset's "... shortage of intensity or challenging angles on articulation, emotional cajoling of key points of arrival and a recognition of conceits beyond his own ephemeral imagination. The playing is supremely expert on one level but the musical results are too often superficial and devoid of much beyond the confines of its own making."

 

Hi, mtl

I understand what he says. But I still don't agree with him.

But they are valid points. in the sense that they are musical questions (bar the final phrases which are just words).

If I can find the time, I will write back, after listening to the mentioned pieces.

I think Leonhardt's versions loom very large in his understanding of the English Suites, but I will try yo find the time to answer back properly.

Thank you indeed for all the trouble you went through.