The Keyboard Music of Bach

A very short comment:

The Gavottes of the D-minor Suite: I don't agree; the Gavotte 2 is actually rather poetic and innocent, played with a very different agogic approach than the first one. Moreover, he used the upper 8'. So he actually gets the contrast right *without* making the gavottes to stand as different from the rest of the suite.

This is an interesting comment because too many players, when they approach the 'gallanterien' (gavottes, minuets and so on) play them as if they are extras to the suite proper - that is, allemande, courante, sarabande and gigue. Rousset actually plays the whole suite as an integrated set of movements. If you consider the Sarabande before and the Gigue after the gavottes, you are faced with the problem of how to integrate the gavottes between them. Rousset plays them as actually belonging to the suite, as a moment of tension (gavotte 1) and distention (gavotte 2). And this is important to know: tempo has little to do with tension or distention. It is the agogic approach, the amount of sound your fingers produce on the keys (loosely what pianists call articulation, but it is actually more complicated than that; I can explain if you want) and the registration.

About the F major I couldn't agree less - it is played fast, but Bach required it expressly: 'vitement' (sic, which means 'fastly' (bad French and bad English). The following allemande is a beauty of cantabile style, and the Sarabande manages, as it should, to sound brilliant and profound: a mid summer afternoon's musing.

The rest of the Sarabandes are wonderful too - why should one hesitate? Bach requires a firm touch and a very cantabile style; it is from the cantabile that all meaning stems (in Bach - this is not general).

Alas I can write no mere. But I may, during the next month, make an in-depth analysis of the recording.
 
If piano versions allowed in this thread, I could recommend Jean Louis Steuerman's version on Philips Duo. What fingers! But I must warn that it is a very cold and unromantic version. The pianist's technique is, however, otherwordly.
 
I think The Keith Jarrett version of WTC II is marvelous and the best available. Does anyone object? And since Jarrett recorded WTC I on piano, could someone recommend me a harpsichord version of WTC1 that I will like?
 
Never listened to Steuerman. I think the partitas are too 'harpsichordy' and, therefore, seldom listen to them played on the piano. But I did like Alexis Weissenberg's set, which I heard about 10 years ago.
 
Koopman

I am puzzled by the remarks about the Koopman recordings.
I just listened to WTC1 and I must say that my copy sounds ok.
It sounds full and detailed,slightly too closely miked.
Well it sounds just as the other Koopman/Versteijnen recordings I have.The records(Harlekijn) are slightly better than the cds(Erato,Philips)as expected with all the high frequency content.
 
To Bat and RDS

Bat:

I haven't heard the Keith Jarrett WTC 2 on harspichord, but if you look through this thread you'll see lengthy discussions on the various harpsichord versions. I went for the Gilbert, which is spell-binding!

RDS:

Notwithstanding my remarks above about the harpsichord for the WTC, I have just now received the Koroliov (piano) WTC 1 you recommended to me earlier.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I would never have come across this version on my own (I'm ashamed to admit I'd never heard of Koroliov until you wrote about him). This CD is truly wonderful: the volume needs cranking up a little (which is no bad thing), but the music, the beauty, the artistry, the technique! Within seconds of putting the CD on, I had a broad smile across my face! Wonderful!

Thank you again!
 
Sorry to reply so late but I was kept extremely busy by a non event - University stuff :zzzz: boring, useless and very time wasting.

JohnnyBlue.

I'm very happy you liked Koroliov! The second book was issued this year, but I haven't got it yet.

Nevertheless, if you liked Koroliov, I think you'll like S. Richter, too. The sound is not so good, but the performance is just marvelous.

TDA:

You're right to be puzzled, because what I wrote is rubbish. The harpsichord doesn't sound muffled at all. I just don't like the Kroesbergen harpsichords because they are too soft for my taste.

Koopman likes them because he claims a harpsichord should have dynamics (which, of course, is not true: most, in fact all except a few) have not. Kroesbergen managed to introduce a tiny amount in his harpsichords (I don't know how). The Koopman WTC, by the way, is generally very good. I don't like the phrase by phrase approach, but it can be marvelous sometimes and it may be quite thrilling.

So, thank you for your correction.

And finally, Bat,

that is why I would very tentatively recommend the Koopman version to you. It is not jazzy, as Jarrett's is, but it comes close.
 
Yet more on the WTC!

RdS:

I can't believe you're suggesting another version of the WTC for me to buy! Just to put all this into perspective: when I first joined this thread, all I had was the Keith Jarrett WTC 1 on piano ââ'¬â€œ which, by the way, I don't find the least bit jazzy and that is probably why (despite being a massive fan of KJ) I don't particularly like it.

I then bought the 1940's versions of WTC 1 & 2 by Edwin Fischer (piano), and now, thanks to your excellent tutelage, I have got the Gilbert on harpsichord and the Koroliov WTC 1 on piano (I'm still waiting for SplashDVD to send me the Koroliov WTC 2).

For a while at least, all this record buying has to stop: I'm hoping to move house from London to East Grinstead (also in the UK) in the next month or two!
 
I will check out the Koopman version if possible... BTW, the Jarrett WTC2 is IMHO not jazzy; I don't like jazz at all and would have noticed. In fact, I have some trouble with some Bach compositions such as WTC, Musical Offering and die Kunst der Fuge. They are great, yes, but are they as beautiful as the best of the free organ works, or Partitas, or even French or English suites? Right now I think they're not.
Another interesting WTC not yet mentioned: Louis Thiry's organ recording. According to Thiry's recording's liner notes many 'features of the composition undoubtedly call for the organ.'
A scenario of mine: Bach, the organist by heart, wanting to demonstrate the superiority of equal temperament for the organ (which are as far I know very rarely completely retuned) composed the Well-tempered clavier with the organ in mind.
A WTC that first aroused my interest in classical music, after hearing some GG cassettes: Friedrich Gulda's piano recording.
 
Johnny:

It's not that expensive, but you can listen to some bits here

It is worth it, and if you later think you must have it and it is out of stock?? :tempting: :JOEL:

Bat:

Well, the WTC takes some time to get used to. But it does contain the most incredible pieces of music. In many ways, I actually prefer it to most of the organ Preludes and Fugues.

There are many unforgetfully beautiful pieces. Of course the first one, then the 4th one, in c#minor - perhaps my preferred one - number 8 (perversely written in two enharmonic keys: e flat minor and d# minor), 12, f minor, 15, G major, 22, b flat minor, 24, b minor. Just to mention the first book. And then, in the WTC II at least the unbeleivably beautiful e major, b flat minor and b major.

I'm talking about the pieces I like most. But II truly think they stand the comparison with, for instance, the great e minor, the great b minor, a minor (my favorites) organ ones and so on.

Of course, you may prefer the organ. It is true that organ tone is very haunting (if the organ is good!).

And we come to Thyri. I have that record, and quite like it. The organ is a beauty, he is an incredible virtuoso (the bass line is taken in the pedals in most of the pieces!!) but I don't like his very legatto approach. That said, it is one of the beautiful versions and, for instance, if you consider the b flat minor II, it is the only version where you can actually listen to all the counterpuntal comlexity.

But I actually don't think the WTC was writen with the organ in mind. I'm studying some PFs from the WTC and I studied some organ PFs. The technique is completely different. For instance, PF 1 (Book 1) sounds strange on the organ and is plain beautiful on the harpsichord; PF G major (Book II) has no paralel whatever in the organ music I played. I'm also reading the E major (II) fugue: there we do find organistic writing, but it actually sounds better through the harpsichord. Also, the c#minor (1) is clearly writen for the harpsichord (and very hard to play: 5 voices with 10 fingers).

Regarding the well tempered scale. I'm not completely sure Bach wrote for equal tempering. Some PFs sound rather harsh in it. But Bach certainly had a simple system of tuning (he was said to be able to tune a harpsichord in a quarter of an hour!! - I take about an hour and a half - which implies a simple system, and not equal temperament). But anyway, writting for the organ Bach complied with temperament limitations in the organ (except for his very late work - for instance, the big e minor).

Well, I'm just trying to convince you that the WTC is very beautiful.

The Art of fugue is another matter. The theme is a haunting one, but there are superlatively beautiful fugues. For instance, the fourth, the fifth, the one 'per diminutionen & augmentationen' and the huge 9th one. But all is extremely beautiful. It takes a little while to understand the thing, because it has to be heard in sucession as many bew themes appear and the fugues grow in complexity. The best way is perhaps to listen partition in hand, but if you manage to memorize the theme and its inversion and the many modifications of it and the secondary themes (it is a lot to memorize, I agree), the work will sink in and you'll find it sublime.

There is a very good version by Marie Claire Alain (she doesn't seem to get into the 4th fugue, though), but I can't find an English link to it.

Well. Bach is an Ocean (pun intended) and you can really spend your entire life on his music, being sometimes a little unfaithful (I often say I am married to Bach's music, Buxtehude's being my highly erotic lover and having many other less important affairs).

This is being writen in bits and bribes because I'm having to attend to several tasks at once (I hate doing it), and I think it will show, but I'm not rereading this or I shan't post it!
 
The Thiry recording on Arion is wonderful.It gave me new insight in some passages.
My spinet needed some radical retuning, to be able to copy them.
 
You migth try the Werkmeister tuning (you'll need a tuner). The far off keys are to some extent out of tune, though. Equal temperament really sounds ugly (the thirds and fifths are awful) in harpsichords and spinets.

I tune my harpsichord on a very regular bases. When one is used to it it comes almost naturally (of course, the broken string problem is always behind the door!).

What kind of spinet do you have: a bentside?
 
Hi RdS,

yes, a bentside.It is a Sperrhake.On the site from Hans Hilberink are some photos of an identical specimen.
 
WTC on Piano Email No. 578 (!)

RdS

Sorry to drag away from your discussions with TDA123 about bentsides or whatever (the world of harpsichords is clearly as mysterious as the world of organs!)...

I have also, following your suggestion, now got the Richter WTC Books 1 & 2, and, as you said, the recording is more distant and tinny than the Koroliov, but my ears adapted very quickly to the difference in sound, and I am now deriving great pleasure from this music. Thank you again (but please don't suggest any more WTC recordings!).

Sadly, my order (and my money!) for the Koroliov WTC Book 2 has disappeared, along with SplashDVD, so I can't comment on that one.
 
Originally posted by TDA1540
Hi RdS,

yes, a bentside.It is a Sperrhake.On the site from Hans Hilberink are some photos of an identical specimen.
Click to expand...

Hi, TDA.

I always liked bentsides. For one thing th sound comes to us in a much more direct fashion than with a harpsichord. You can, therefore, listen carefully to the tiny dynamic effects one manages with touch variations.

Also, they are much easier to tune - there only one string, and with a harpsichord, you only have it really in tune for a few days at the most, so you only play with one register anyway.

I tried a Sperrhake one some years ago - I suppose it is the same model as yours. The sound was quite beautiful and the touch very precise.

What are you playing with it at the moment?
 
JohnyBlue.

I'm sorry about the Koroliov. I haven't bought it yet.

And I'm very happy you liked the Richter. I would hate to recommend something that you wouldn't like.

Well, I'll stop suggesting further records. But have you seen how cheap the Leonhardt one is?:MILD:

:tempted:
 
Hi Rds,

after a bit of Bach,I have returned to dAnglebert.(and to this thread)
Allthough I like to listen to Bach,I prefer to(trying to) play Rameau and dAnglebert.

Martijn
 
Originally posted by TDA1540
Hi Rds,

after a bit of Bach,I have returned to dAnglebert.(and to this thread)
Allthough I like to listen to Bach,I prefer to(trying to) play Rameau and dAnglebert.

Martijn
Click to expand...

Hi, Martijn.

Nice to read from you again.

D'Anglebert's music is extremely beautiful. And although I never played it I have the feeling that it must be extremely rewarding (also rather difficult) to play well. (By the way, what edition do you have? - I'm searching for a good one). I can't wait to get into the Tombeau (on the death of Chambonières) and many others. Marvelous flowing music: deep, subtle and extremely moving; but one must get the phrasing right and that doesn't seem very simple to me!

Bach is - I'm not being pretentious - easier. When you get your fingering right the pieces usually play themselves, but it may be very boring study: before you achieve a certain amount of proficiency it is like studying an exercise.

As for Rameau, I usually like mostly the classic dances - allemandes, courantes, the sarabandes - and feel slightly lost with the more mundane (and also often more difficult) character pieces. It is too modern, or, rather, too far away from my main formation, which is counterpoint.

But I like the way Bachs rounds up his harmony and the extremely logic fingering (NOT piano-like) - it seems my hands were designed to play his music - and most people I know that play it on the harpsichord and organ say likewise. The Art of Fugue is not in this case, though, and in spite of the magnificent essay by Gustav Leohnardt (short but really to the point) I cannot really convince myself this is specifically keyboard music (let alone organ music: there is never a real pedal line).

Would you develop on d'Anglebert and Rameau - what are you playing?
 
Well-tempered car radio

I have been listening to the Jarrett WTC2 in my car and I still firmly believe that it is better than the competition, without having heard them. Why is everyone calling me stupid - I don't understand what they mean.
Jarrett does have a peculiar manner of phrasing which could be called jazzy. He does it on purpose, he likes it that way.

I wonder would Gilbert sound as good in my car since it is an older recording?
 
dAnglebert

Hi RdS,

I use the edition by Gilbert(le Pupitre,Heugel).
I am attempting to play some transcriptions of works by Lully, because these pieces are firmly embedded in my neurons (the Harmonia mundi cd was one of my first discs)
Even with my very limited keyboardskills I like the results allthough my stile brisee is somewhat more broken than is bearable for the accidental listener.

The Gilbert edition comes in two volumes.Volume one contains the four suites,part two has the transcriptions and pieces for organ.

M.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top