The Keyboard Music of Bach

Order also some good wine, just in case you don't like Jarrett. But you will like it, although some say that it should be banned, or at least equipped with warning label.
For instance the E-flat major gigue is just staggering.

 

Have been listening to Rousset's French Suites for the past two days. I don't have much basis for comparison (having only previously listened to Cates's set) but it must rank as one of the best sets available. I could hardly imagine Hogwood or Moroney playing better than this. I know of no other harpsichordist who plays with such cultured and cultivated ease, and there are quite a few excellent soloists around. Tremendous recording.

As for Jarrett, I have only listened to his Goldbergs. Despite a beautiful-sounding harpsichord, his interpretation sounded slowish, stilted and stiff, although his ornamentations deserve some credit. I admire his work as a jazz pianist but a harpsichord, as many pianists seem to forget, is a different instrument altogether. However, if the chance arrives, I will give his French Suites a listen. He is, after all, an extremely talented musician.

Cates has some interesting ideas as to how the music is phrased and employs staggering and pronounced hesitations in the music. When this works, he comes up with some wonderful musical phrases that are sensitive and enlightening. When it doesn't, one feels like he's trying to do too much with the written music, and the inventiveness feels somewhat contrived. Still, an interesting set which is definitely worth listening to.

Has anyone heard Rannou's or Gilbert's set?

Regards.

 

Yesterday the postman brought me Keith Jarretts French suites. If I should characterize these with one single word, this would be "beautiful". The harpsichord is uncredited and sounds not specially "period" . It has an opulent somewhat harp-like sound without sounding as shrill and bombastic as some older preautentic types. Jarret choses calm tempi, (the courantes perhaps a bit too slow) but the music gets time to unfold without loss of momentum, and the articulation is most stylish and carefully executed. The agogics are discrete but natural. He makes all the repeats, and considering the fact that he is able to improvise for hours on piano, it is somewhat surprising, that he makes almost no variations at all. All in all a very recomendable set.

As I wrote in the thread Bachs English suites, I find that one of the strongest contenders as to the French suites is Lars Ulrik Mortensen . He has got all that brilliance , aplomb and sense of style you relate to Rousset and in addition he is even more exciting - believe it or not.
Special fine is his French suites and the Chromatic fantasy
and the Goldbergs. He has just released the three first harpsichord-concertos (incl the d-minor) for CPO. Quite simply unsurpassable.

Sn66, you describe Cates' agogics almost as I would describe part of Wolfgang Rübsams agogics, except for the fact that it works for Rübsam almost all the time.He recorded the suites and partitas on piano for Naxos, and is the only one, who can hold my attention playing Bach on piano. Should I aquire Cates anyway?

I have heard Gilberts French suites only once. I think
you can get more relevant information about Gilbert from RdS.

 

Indeed, I have Gilbert's set. It was done in a very bright Rückers, and the sound is rather bad: shrill and too 'solid'. But what really prevents me from liking the set is that during production they messed up so badly that you get diapason oscillations (i.e.: different pitches) in different dances of the same suite. That is quite impossible to my ears.

That apart, it is a commendable version. Gilbert is a little stiff, nothing to compare with his last Bach recordings, where he manages to maintain extremely long phrasing exactly on time (especially what I think is his best recording, the Chromatic Fantasy).

I didn't know Mortensen had the Chromatic. What label, may I ask? I only have his Partitas. They are OK, but perhaps a little too mannered for my taste. I also have his Froberger: the first few times I listened to it I was flabbergasted! I showed it to a professional organist friend of mine and he was, too. My girlfriend was enamoured with the record. Little by little I began feelling that the second of the three Leonhardt records (onFroberger) was better: taughter, to the point, harder, much more impressive. In the Tombeau of Monsieur Blancheroche (sic) Mortensen is unbelievable: all the turmoil and passion and agony - even the tolling of the bell, it is all incredible. Leonhardt's first version (DHM) almost seems underplayed in comparison. But there you do get all the horror of the piece without the fireworks. Of course Leonhardt is unsurpassable in Froberger, but still, the difference is the one between a rococco rendering of the Passion and a Late Medieval Spanish one. There is colour in Mortensen. In Leonhardt you will find death. Sublime.

Sorry for going so much off topic.

 

I don't think so. I haven't got the records here, but the sound is very different. The French Suites' one is a lusher, broader sounding instrument. Of course, it may be just the recording.

 

Dear chaps,

Thanks for the excellent replies. Gilbert has always interested me as he has a different style of performing, his phrasing and touch being quite simply superb. I have ordered his Goldbergs and am searching high and low for his partitas.

RdS, the same harpsichord was used in both the English and French Suites by Rousset, although they do sound somewhat different. Is there a reasonable explanation for this, for instance, tuning, location etc?

Pe-zulu, I would suggest listening to a sizeable amount of Cates's French Suites before purchasing. It may not be to your liking as musical preferences are so varied and diverse. Speaking for myself, I tend to look to the positives of each set I listen to, which is why I very much enjoy the playing of eccentric performers like Gould and Verlet.

Has anyone listened to Scott Ross's recordings of Bach's keyboard works? He is another performer whom I would like to learn more about as his works are quite difficult to come by.

Regards.

 

Scott's 1985 live Goldberg variations is very good.

 

Well, location of the microphones would be my bet. The English suites were probably close miked, and the French taken from a little further.

I can't remember the records, but diapason may be an issue: if you tune the harpsichord a little lower the tension on the strings will be less, and the sound not so bright. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I did with my harpsichord: most of the time it is tuned to 390. The fact is (and Rousset gave a very interesesting interview saying just that) that practicing for hours on a fully voiced harpsichord is a painful experience. A friend of mine covers his harpsichord with a very thick piece of cloth. I, myself, use the device stated above and always practice with the lid down. A 8+8+4 tutti is *very* loud, especially if you are standing at a right angle (and to the right) of a harpsichord. Playing it for a few minutes one does not realize it, but it *is* trying to play for a very long time (in an organ the problem is much worse, chiefly when the Hauptwerk is immidiately above you (when there is no Brustwerk). I remember playing a 17th centurty organ in which is was quite impossible to practice with the plenum: you did it once or twice to monitor the result, but usually you would use just princiapl 8+4 or even plain principal 8. I don't really know if this happens to pianists (the only time I had unlimited access to a good piano it was placed in a huge room - a dancing hall) but it is more or less impossible not to become a little deaf (although you maintain intonation and even timbre-accuracy) when you are an organist or even a harpsichordist.

Concerning the Partitas. I don't know if they are still available. They are masterful. One of the best recordings ever. Of course, the e minor gigue gets the horrible triple time. But it is impossible to resist the charms of the 4th - the most elegant, finely «nuancé» version I ever came accross. Much better than Rousset's. When you listen to it score in hand you realize how incredfibly precise Gilbert's sense of rythm and tempo is: not one note on the «right» place, and yet the music flows in teh most possible beaytiful manner.

If you can't really find it, fell free to PM me. I may get it for you.

 

Bach suites

Yes ,the harpsichordist Leonhardt is certainly unsurpassable
almost whatever he touches, and not only in Bach but also
in Froberger, Frescobaldi, Sweelinck, Forqueray to mention a few. But fortunately there is a number of other harpsichordists with complementary subtle and personal views on the same music. And talking about Lars Ulrik Mortensen I should characterize him with the same word "colourful" , but so is Froberger in this meditative painting and Bach too, not the least in the Suites and Partitas and the Chromatic(Kroma) Fantasy. And Mortensen is dramatic and (admittedly) more extrovert than Leonhardt, but in no way superficial. While Gilbert sings, you could say that Mortensen talks, at least he has a very stong sense of the retoric elements in the music without being unduely extravagant as e.g. Pierre Hantaï who's Chromatic is hard driven and explicit sensational.

Mortensen recorded the Chromatic Fantasy in 1988 for the
danish firm Kontrapunkt (Kontrapunkt 32012) on a copy of the famous Chr. Zell in Hamburg. I do not know much about Bachs preference for harpsichordmakers, but this has a splendid clear and a little dry sound. On the same CD are 4 Toccate manualiter and the Aria Variata.For Da Capo Mortensen incidentally has recorded three CDs with harpsichord-music of Buxtehude most of it from the Ryge-collection and the harpsichord is tuned in some sort of meantone. A splendid set.

Scott Ross' partitas (and Chromatic Fantasy) are like Mortensens very colourful but much less dramatical or rhetorical. He makes most of the repeats without much variation, and we get the bad tripletimeversion of the e-minor gigue (frankly I can't stand it). But otherwise a fine set with beautiful details and no true idiosyncrasies.

As to Blandine Rannou I have listened to her English suites, and she plays all the repeats with little variation. But the worst is her agogic, especially in the preludes, allemandes and sarabandes.She holds back the pulse incessantly in a rather casual way, in some cases it boarders almost a non mesuré execution. Even if she plays brilliantly and with stylish ornamentation and all that, she is not to my taste.

I agree, that Blandine Verlet is an eccentric performer, but in contrast to Glenn Gould, whom I just find irritating, I think that Verlet wins with repeated listening, if you can stand the harsh sound of the Hans Ruckers and its meantone tuning. Her Chromatic Fantasy is carefully and sometimes wilfully articulated and dramatic, colourful too, and the same can be said of her e-minor Partita. But still that awful tripletime gigue.

Regards

 

Dear chaps,

Once again, some wonderful and detailed replies from all of you.

RdS, your offer is most kind and generous but I could not possibly impose upon you in such a manner, although I am very touched and gratified.

My interest in Gilbert's partitas actually stem from the fact that they were the first recording of any of Bach's works that I had heard, about six to seven years ago. Till then, I had been mostly into Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, King Crimson and Jethro Tull, but Bach's music just caught me by the scruff of my soul and never let go. After hearing Bach in my friend's sound room (he has since moved on), there was no turning back (pardon the pun). In fact, I bought Rousset's set because there were many similarities in their style of playing. However, although Rousset's partitas are elegant, erudite and played on a wonderful-sounding Hemsch, I still remember Gilbert's almost surreal set (I heard it only once) with real fondness, although my memory of some of the music has become somewhat hazy.

Which actually brings me to a query; how is one supposed to play the repeats of a particular piece? Rousset, in his Goldbergs and partitas, hardly ornamented the repeats at all, whereas in both his English and French Suites, he ornaments them quite elaborately. In fact, Rousset has been accused of actually using regenerations (using the same piece of music for its repeat) in some of his recordings, most notably BWV 831, the French Overture. I do not
think his partitas have that, but I have not heard his French Overture. Personally, for purely musicological reasons, I would not agree with such a practice.

For the record, I also think the triple time of the final gigue of the 6th partita is quite horrible. Is there any valid reason to play it in such a manner? Why is this gigue played differently by respective harpsichordists?

Cheers.

 

In the 1950-60-ies the plain score was the "bibletext" (some sort of reaction against romanticism) and the repetitions in Bachs suites were played like fair copies (e.g. by Ahlgrimm,Walcha and Galling), but the "authentic" movement (Leonhardt and pupils) teached , that the repetitions should be varied with extra embellishment, passing notes and so on. This is an altogether more musical solution, if the player has got the neccesary sense of style. There are a few paradigmes of this technique in Bachs English suites (the courante 2 in suite 1 and the sarabandes of suite 2 and 3).

It is a pity that Leonhardt himself has not left more recorded examples of this technique. On the contrary his latest recording of the Partitas and English suites are entirely without repetitions. Indeed he is a most talented co-composer, as shown by his recording of his own arrangements for harpsichord of Bachs six soloviolinworks (sonate 2 in Bachs own arrangement , and Leonhardts in the same spirit).

Roussets recordings of the Partitas and the Ouverture are more than ten years old. The English and French suites are quite new. The difference in execution of the repeats is part of a remarkable artistic development.

I don't know if any scholar knows the final truth about how the gigue of the e-minor partita should be played. But in my opinion the triple metre version is an example of bad taste and demonstrates - without any scientific arguments - that it probably was intended to be played in double metre. But it is astonishing much easier to play in triple metre.

Regards

 

How do Mortensen's partitas and French Suites compare to Rousset's? Is Scott Ross's partitas better than Rousset's or Pinnock's? Just for fun, I've decided to put out a list of my favourites.

Partitas - 1. Gilbert 2. Leonhardt 3. Suzuki 4. Rousset 5. Pinnock
Interesting sets by Gould, Tureck, Parmentier, Weiss and Haugsand.

English Suites - 1. Rousset and Parmentier (just can't decide between them) 3. Leonhardt 4. Gould 5. Gilbert

French Suites - I've only heard Rousset's and Cates's respective sets.

Comments are most welcome.

Regards.

 

As Pe-Zulu said, the triple time is astonishingly easier to play than the double time version (all things considered).

There are two reasons to play the final e minor gigue in triple time. The first one is that in Froberger's day it was common practice to write in double time what was to performed in triple time. Does that stretches to Bach? I do not think so.

The second reason is that the tempo marking is a crossed circle. In the Middle Ages that meant triple time. Again, I doubt that the tradition was known to Bach.

My arguments against the triple time version are purely musical. The anapest is a very important element of all of the 6th suite; so a series of 'triolets' don't belong there at all, whereas tárada tárada tám does.

I must say I simply don't understand the music when played in triple time, and cannot see it as an ending to the most rhethorical of the partitas. In triple time the appearance of the 'straight' (as opposed to inverted) theme makes no sense at all, whereas when it appears in double time it makes a lot of sense: it is the furious affirmation of the begining, a true musical statement and a proper ending.

Blandine Verlet's second set is very unballanced but the e-moll gigue is played in double time as opposed to her first version (Philips). You get purely mean-tone (which sounds odd indeed in e-minor). But then, Gilbert also uses mean-tone (or almost mean tone). His playing is absolutely gorgeous. It is true that Rousset learnt much from him and, in certain cases (d'Anglebert) he may have surpassed his master (his formal masters were Bob van Asperen and Leonhardt, but he later studied with Gilbert, with whom he identified much more), but is the partitas nothing could be further from the truth.

Gilbert's 4th suite is a pure marvel (although he does not greatly ornament the repeats), his harpsichord sound unreally beautiful, full yet brilliant - very 'valve-like' if you will - and his «pas trop bien» that is, not too perfectly rendering of ornaments is really beautiful. One can almost excuse him the triple time.

A small note of humour. I'm tired, this has been a long day, and I quite unconsciously typed «tripe time» several times...

 

Bump.

This has been coming up often enough. I hope it will be of interest.

 

In his notes to the Urtext-edition of Bachs partitas for G.Henle R.Steglich wrote about the e-minor gigue (in 1971):

"By notating this Gigue with the double semicircle Bach indicated that the note values were doubled. Accordingly he wrote the piece in Anna Magdalenas Notenbuch in Alla Breve time (2/2) with the notes of half the value. The metre is therefore twice down (on 1st and 3rd beat) and twice up (on 2nd and 4th) in distinct keeping with the character of the Gigue."
This is in his opinion the only relevant interpretation of the double semicircle, and he does not say as much as one word about triple metre.

Alla Breve metre is prescribed for the Gigue in the French suite in d-minor too, which in this respect and in respect to the written rhytms is somewhat similar to the e-minor gigue. Was the d-minor gigue meant to be played in triple metre too? Most unlikely. Besides this I don't understand why Bach in the e-minor Gigue explicit makes a distinction between anapest-figures and dactylic-figures. This seems superfluous if both figures were ment to be played as a triplet.

So "the triplet theory" looks as if it is based opon a most unlikely hypothesis.

 

Yes, RdS' introductory words to the partitas are as ever comprehensive and informative.
I know most of the spoken of performances and I havn't much of importance to add.

Walcha remains fascinating and instructive despite all formal objections to his playing.
I always found the harpsichordist Karl Richter painfully mechanical and superficial. Anyone who has heard his Archive-version of Bachs harpsichord-concertos knows what I think of.
The same is true IMO of his partitas, which I once owned.
Nor do I like the organist Karl Richter much, but as a conductor he made his most memorable recordings.
Leonhardts partitas will remain my first choice.
Pinnock is in a way perfect, but his two recordings are apparently more ruled by routine than inspiration and are essentially boring.
I have heard Gilberts version but just twice some time ago. His seemed a little dry the first time I heard it, but the second time I got my attention more alert and learned to worship the details better, and I have to listen more to him.
Roussets version is the work of a clever and talented pupil,
correct and meticulous but without much individuality or authority.Though much better than Pinnocks routine.
Badura-Skoda, well - interesting harpsichord, a type not much used for Bach recordings. I find the interpretation acceptable but as RdS points out, you can hear the tecnical problems of this pianist.
I have got a faint memory of Verlets Philips-version. Found it intolerably incoherent. Her new version is still uneven but much better IMO. And no need to doubt her engagement.
Mortensen is my second preferred version, next only to Leonhardt I think. Brilliant, stylish, dramatic, colourful, expressive.
Staier on the other hand has the worst version I have ever heard. It is a very fast and brutal show-off without any observance of differentiated articulation or expression. A version to dispose of.
Suzuki gives a most dramatic performance , full of energy and drive. And with fine variations in the repeats. My third preferred version.
RdS mentions next a version by Robert Hill for Hyperion. As far as I know, Hill has not recorded the partitas (I wish he would) and by the way not for Hyperion. Confusion with the Robert Wolley-version for Chandos?
Haugsands version is very individual. Well articulated and very interesting expressive agogics. Like Wolfgang Rübsam, but more modest.
Finally a few words about Kirkpatrick. His is also a marvellous fascinating version, which recently has been rereleased on CD.
The first word which comes to my mind is colourful, understood quite litterally: The sheer sound of the instrument and his colourful, almost orchestral use of registrations. He plays a Neupert with woodframe, but the kaleidoscopic sounds from Landowskas Pleyel springs to mind. He uses much 16f, some would say too much. He plays all repetitions, altered registrations being the only changes. But the real fascination is his very individual, almost breathing attack and his detailled and careful articulation. A great artist of the harpsichord.

If I in the spirit of sn66 should make a list of ranking this would be:
1. Leonhardt(first version best),2.Mortensen,3.Suzuki,
and interesting versions by Haugsand, Gilbert,Walcha and Kirkpatrick.
I have some more versions to study, and things may be changed.

 

I also have this (except it's the complete WTC in two boxed sets). I think the KGB's recording engineer was at the controls for these sessions While I understand (after digesting RDS' points) that this is not the "real" WTC, I like it because you can hear the "bones" of the piece very well, and I think he plays marvellously well. Not a definitive recording, I understand, but a good one for someone like myself - and good if you are trying to get at the structure.

Bach's music always makes me think of Islamic systems of pattern design. It seems that Bach used similar mathematical techniques of inversion, repetition to achieve his results.
The other similarity is that Islamic artists & scholars were looking for God in their art*. The same perhaps for Bach, not so much in the subject matter, but in the very form of what he wrote?

*Anyone interested should take a look at Islamic Patterns: An Analytical and Cosmological Approach by Keith Critchlow.

 

I read, a very long time ago, a book on islamic patterns; but it was plain text, very few illustrations, so... Nevertheless, I know islamic rugs rather well, so that may compensate for the lack of actual knowledge.

In a sense, I think you are right. Bach used a certain amount of repetitive technique (inversion, stretti and so forth), that is, in fact, reminiscent of Islamic art. The chief difference is, I think, that music works on time. Now the patterns, in Bach, only make sense when one understands them in evolution, which is not really possible without time.

But there is a deeper sense on your analogy which I think is quite interesting. Bach - at least in his clavier music - seldom used great rhethorical gestures: he plays with tension and release. Now some of the ways of achieving tension are very abstrac, an many people totally fail to understand them. An upward moving line means 'light' if it goes on like defga; it means difficult ascent if it goes dfega; downwards, it means the reverse (I'm simplifying things to the point of being grotesque); a stretto gives a sense of urgence; a mirror theme claims for its straight statement (for instance, all of the great b flat minor WTC II fugue is based on that - and what a statement that final 4 part stretto is!!!, on the theme *and* its inversion: coincidentia oppositorum, of course).

So I think you are right. Bach did use patterns in which the emotional meaning was so rarefied as to become almost 'abstract'.

So yes, I think it is a very good analogy.

 

Woops! Yes, Wolley, Chandos! I agree on the whole, but particularly with your words on Staier. Why he got a Diapason d'Or with that record I will never know!

P.S.: I agree that Richter, boith organist and harpsichordist is rather worse than the Choir conductor. But I used to love his 6th partita. It was the first harpsichord record I ever bought. I dont' posess it any more,so I cannot really tell what I think. I'll try and review (lightly) Kirkpatrick's Partitas.

 

Exactly! As the German say, Genau!