The Keyboard Music of Bach

Wow guys, as a non-musician, many of the terms used eg anapest-figures, dactylic-figures have me quite baffled; nevertheless, I feel, for purely musical listening purposes, the double time is the better time for the E minor gigue (I hope my ignorance is forgiven!).

Btw, I was looking at the art of fugue thread - I was wondering if anyone has heard the Andre Isoir organ recording and had comments - and am moved to write this as a vote of confidence, although I am aware what was written in that thread was written quite some time ago.

RdS, the music, for me, is always more important than the equipment (which is not to say that the equipment is unimportant), and I agree with many of the things that you and tones wrote about. I have been looking through many of the threads and feel that you have contributed immensely and articulately to quite a significant degree in them. You are obvoiusly very learned in such music, but the fact that you are willing to share your knowledge freely is impressive. Do not worry about the length of your posts because they are very informative, and for someone like me, a good reference guide. This also applies to many other posts from guys like pe-zulu, tones, GrahamN, etc. which assist me invaluably.

tones, your assessment of classical music is spot-on, and I can only say that I am one of those non-classical music buffs who enjoy listening to baroque music tremendously. Although I still enjoy rock music (next to the harpsichord, the electric guitar is my favourite instrument), I listen to Bach's keyboard works almost every day.

So guys, please carry on the good work.

Now, about that Andre Isoir Art of Fugue recording ... any views?

Cheers.

 

RdS, am I right in believing that mean-tone means that the harpsichord was tuned in one key for the whole recording of all the suites? Was this in accordance with the authentic style of performance during the Baroque period?

I also gather from your comments that you think very highly of Rousset's recording of d'Anglebert's works. Is it comparable to his Couperin?

Regards.

 

Sn66,

Why just André Isoir? I know of ca. 25 organ-versions of Die Kunst der Fuge, and Isoir should never be my first choice and not even nr. ten. And there are many excellent harpsichord-versions.
When I have finished my listening to Partitas and Suites, I intend to write something about Die Kunst der Fuge, but for the next two weeks I shall be rather busy on my job.

Regards

 

Dear sn66:

Thank you for your kind words. Music is a hobby for me, so why not share it? I like writing, too, so it is no big deal that I wrote all the stuff you find here.

Well mean tone was a way of tuning that gave you some pure intervals instead of the impure ones in the modern tuning system. Nowadays we divide the octave into 12 exactly similar half tones; this is because we state that c sharp and d flat are equal. Only they aren't. Depending on context, c sharp may be lower or sharper than d flat. At least, that's the way theory goes. But, with a twelve note octave, you have to chose your intervals. Mean tone is a way of making for a very pure scale in C major, d minor and so on; but e major (for sharps) sounds rather bad, because many of the sharps were actually tuned as flats; so: fcgd, would be sharp. Now f# is usually good; c# also good; but g# would probably be a flat.

SO you cannot modulate freely, that is, you cannot realy use, say, d# minor (it would sound out of tune).

But temperament is a very difficult business (I know little about it). All One needs to know is that after you have listened to a pure mean tone in c major all other temperaments (or tonalities) will sound out of tune.

During the Baroque this was put to use. For instance, f#minor sounds terribly out of tune. So it was used to convey distress; c minor was very gloom and troubled - a 'black and red' tonality. G major was very gay (in the old meaning of the word), and so on.

Now how did Bach tune his harpsichords? We do know he liked a quasi-equal temperament (the one used today in pianos) in organs. But what about the harpsichord? Didi he use different tunings to different keys? It was said about him that he could tune a harpsichord in about 15 minutes. Did he do it when changing tonality? We don't know.

About Isoir's Art of Fugue. I have it, and I waited a long time for it only to me sorely disapointed. His earlier Bach organ records were good, if somewhat 'over-expressive'. But his Art of Fugue is too fluid, and the organ he uses has too low a wind pressure, so that the basses and tenor get very muddled sound; also, his fingering (mainly legato) doesn't seem to suit the Art of Fugue (there should be almst NO legato touch on the organ).

I don't have it here, but when I can I'll give it a listen. I don't quite remember now, but I think he sort of trivializes the nobility and austerity of the Art of Fugue.

Why did I not comment earlier? Because I had not bought it yet! But even so, I don't comment on every record I own when I write a review. I try to, but when it really did not impress me I often forget about it.

I hope this post will be understandable. If not, pe-zulu will clarify.

About D'Anglebert and Couperin. D'Anglebert's suites are marvelous by Rousset, but they are a comparatively recent recording. The Couperin set is rather old. Anyway, Gilbert's version is marred (as his HM records often are) by the strangest of effects: q kind of vibrato on the harpsichord that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual sound of the instrument. Now I really don't know why. Was it recorded from a wobbling vinyl disc spinner? It is a mystery to me, but, although I have several records of Couperin by hilbert, they are impossible for me to listen. Later he did record a single order (the one begining with La Forqueray) which is plain fantastic, better than Leonhardt's version IMO.

When I was a very young boy I liked Scott Ross's Couperin enormously. Nowadays I find it uninventive and quite flat (and very poorly recorded).

Couperin is a case in itself. It must not be overplayed, yet it must be played movingly. He said, himself, that he liled much better what moved him than what struck him. So that is the way to go. Gilbert did it. I would like him to records some more Couperin. But I think he has almost retired from the studios.

 

Yes, Isoir's Kunst der Fuge left me rather disappointed too. He plays without any real committement, or as if he does not understand the spirituality of the music. Nor do I like this Grenzing organ, which he uses all too much in his complete Bach-set.

Regards

 

What is troubling is that when he finished is 'integral' he said ha needed a lot of time to records the Art of Fugue. It took him about 10 years. Mmmm... Ten years for THAT?

Grenzig (who I know personally) is an extremely inventive person. He calls himself a traitor of a German (I don't think I am being indiscreet, he said as much in an Organ conference) and, contrary to the German creed, he likes very low pressure. Now that allows for an extremely flexible wind (your fingering *does* indeed influence the sound) but the basses are not that strong. And, more, you cannot draw a lot of stops together.

But Bach demands strong wind: he himself said that. Let's say at leat 80 mm. The Iberian organs Grenzig is so fond of often have 40 mm... When I play an Iberian organ, I must really strike the keys; and more, I must use at least principal 8' and octave 4' to make polyphony understandable. Now Isoir is very found of flute 8' alone registrations. Of course that does not work.

If one searches spirituality, as Pe-Zulu does, and I think quite rightly, one may be moved either by Walcha or by Christensen. In the harpsichord, the version I favour the most is Gilbert's (even if it is the version from the 1740'ies, and not the last one). Moroney's is a fine, academic one. Leonhardt's a powerful version, perhaps too human, but nevertheless a pure marvel (bad recording, though and also no last fugue).

But the Art of Fugue is beautifull in every way. Even Munchinger (Decca, I think) gave us a sublime interpretation. Using [almost] only strings... A marvel.

The Art of Fugue penetrated me to my very soul. I dreamt about it, played some of it and I hope that Fragment X (that's Christoph Wolff's code name for the missing part of the last fugue) will be found during my lifetime, although I really think it is lost forever.

 

Pardon my stupidity, but I thought The Art of Fugue was incomplete due to Bach's death, isn't there an inscription on the manuscript or is that story apocrohyl?

By the way RDS, I think you are the last person we could accuse of sheer imbecility!

 

No, you are quite right: there is a statement written by Carl Philip Emmanuel saying than his father died when working on that fugue.

But Christoff Wolff says (perhaps reasonably) that Bach would not have embarked on such a difficult task without knowing how to solve it. Therefore, there was probably a working copy of the finish which got lost.

Davitt Moroney states that the end could not have been longer than I think two pages, because that was what was left of the manuscript fair copy. So Bach actually knew how much paper he needed.

Therefore, it is quite probable that Bach had worked the whole out. Now, has he written it down? If yes, it was probably lost when CPE Bach took over (he made some mistakes). But there is a probability that it is not lost forever and that it can surface - hence the 'fragment x' hypothesis. I don't believe it. But I'd love Wolff's theory to be true and to be still alive when it would surface.

P.S.: Thanks for the encouragement, but you cannot know how stupid I am sometimes! I see that doesn't show here, and I'm glad . But, truly, sometimes I really despair of myself!

 

Thanks, RdS, for clear and informative answers to my queries. I will be looking out for some performances that utilise this type of mean tone tuning, if only to satisfy my curiosity about the listening experience. I have not heard Verlet's latest set of partitas although her earlier set was quite enjoyable. There is little doubt that she is an excellent harpsichordist, but she is definitely and acquired taste.

In respect of Francois Couperin's works, I have only heard Rousset's interpretations, which are excellent. I was not aware that Scott Ross also recorded Couperin. Incidently, I have Leonhardt's recording of Louis Couperin's Works for Harpsichord which is very well-played. I have heard his Goldbergs, partitas, English Suites, Art of Fugue and Italian Concerto, and they are all of an extremely high standard. He is truly a marvel.

Well actually, pe-zulu, I wanted a good organ recording of the Art of Fugue and Isoir's set seems to have got rave reviews and won many awards. This, in itself, is not indicative of a great recording, but since my knowledge of Bach's works on organ are minimal, I was looking for some guidance in purchasing a worthy copy. I have versions on harpsichord, piano and string quartet, and an organ version would complement them nicely.

Regards.

 

Just a brief message, pe-zulu: will be looking forward to your views on the partitas and suites.

Regards.

 

How about Richard Troeger's clavichord version? I am very happy with it and Steuerman.
Scott Ross's recording is also highly regarded, but I don't have it anymore.

 

I must admit that I'm very suprised not to see Parmentier's partitas on even one post. They are very well-played and extremely interesting ( I believe he utilises almost mean-tone tuning in almost all his recordings). Although I personally prefer his English Suites (one of the best ever!), his partitas and recordings of Froberger and Scarlatti are worthy of attention. I am reminded of an interesting comment made by a fan: if he were living in Europe, he would be acknowledged as the greatest living performer of Bach. And he is considered one of Leonhardt's better students.

Incidently, I must add that I am not trying to promote him excessively, but only feel puzzled that no one has anything, either negative or positive, to say about his interpretations.

pe-zulu, I quite agree with you on many things. Rousset is spirited and elegant, but seems more intent on following the score assiduously. Even his repeats are minimally ornamented, if at all. It's just that I have not listened to Staier or Mortensen so I cannot really comment. I have a feeling that I may really enjoy Mortensen's recordings. Suzuki is wonderful and even Leonhardt's second recording holds a high place in my rankings. In respect of Pinnock, I agree that his readings are not the deepest but for sheer technical brilliance, he is hard to surpass. And his gigues for suites nos. 3, 4 and 5 are excellent. As for Verlet's first set of partitas, I found them idiosyncratic but enjoyable, although she sometimes goes overboard. I have not heard her latest set although there are some very contrasting reviews concerning it.

Regards.

 

I have the tocatas and the partitas. Good recordings, but, in my opinion, the clavichord can never equal a good harpsichord. Also, he plays technically very well, but is perhaps not very inventive. This is an opinion.
That said, I listend to the records a couple of times with pleasure.

 

Sn66, probably only a few of us have heard Parmentier's set.
But since you made me very curious about him, I ordered and got three weeks ago his English suites, Partitas and WTC I.
Then I listened to the whole lot once, but haven't had the time yet to listen to it again. My first impression of his playing was very negative, and for that reason I shall wait to write anything about him until I have investigated him further.
Regards

 

On Saturday, I came across both English and French Suites by a lady of whom I'd never heard, Blanchine Verdet. The covers were liberally covered with "Choc" and "R10" and all the other accolades that the French reviewing magazines seem to reserve for French performers. A listen revealed a warm, close and really quite pleasant recording of measured pace. Just out of curiosity I tried Davitt Moroney as well. It was as virtuosic, but it wasn't as nicely recorded - in fact, it seemed almost as if the recording microphone was inside Verdet's harpsichord, whereas in the case of Moroney it was in the room and the harpsichord and Moroney in the back yard. The recordings were on sale (CHF42 for 2 CDs), so quite good value. I was tempted, but I bravely held off - for another week anyway...

 

Tones,

That must be Blandine Verlet. I own her recording for Astree of the WTC, Partitas and the Goldbergs, very individual renderings which gain with repeated listening. I have heard several times, that she had recorded the English and Frensh suites, but I have not yet been so lucky as to find the recordings anywhere. Do you remember where you saw them and/or the label?

For the moment I am actually listening to different recordings of the Partitas, English and French suites (Parmentier, Rannou, Gilberth, Jaccottet, Kirkpatrick among others) almost to exhaustion, and I would like to know Blandine Verlets recording as well.

A propos: How far have you come through the Haenssler-set? I wonder where he (Bach) found the time to write that lot.

Regards,

 

Hello, Pe-Zulu. Many thanks for correcting my spelling of the lady's name! They were on sale in Musik Hug in Basel. If you're interested and they're still there, I'll pick them up for you next Saturday. There were on a French label of which I'd never heard and whose name I've consequently forgotten. It certainly wasn't Astrée or one of the other familiar French labels.

P.S. Hänssler? Slowly, slowly! I try to drag out an album (4 CDs) a week and listen, but other things often get in the way. Certainly it's a great introduction to Bach; one constantly finds new pieces to explore. With this and Gardiner now producing all the Pilgrimage cantatas, this could be very expensive...

 

This is quite true. The go beserk with other interpreters, too: Arrau, Gould, Harnoncourt (they are all as different as they could be!). But a ggod case in point was The English Suites by Rannou. They are nothing special but they were err... French. Then Rousset's set came out. And, quite apart from being French, they were quite outsdanding! They almost appologized for having given Rannou a Diapason d'Or...

This is odd, because Moroney's is probably the more faithful sound. Mind you, I do not like his John Philips: grey, sharp, but somewhat controlable. Anyway, except for the likes of Zell, there is no way of teeling which instrument is being played: there is so much engineering (I mean it in a pejorative sense) that you cannnot very easily recognize the instruments. The two ones I usually get right are the big Zell and the 1640 Rückers (both pure marvels, but the Zell is easier to identify). And, of course, most 'copies' of the Mietke, which we do not in the least know how it sounded originally...

 

English suites/Helmut Walcha and Ralph Kirkpatrick

To begin in cronological order it makes good sense to comment on these two recordings of the English suites at the same time, since they share some common traits:

Walcha EMI Stereo 1959 LP, rereleased on CD only in Japan, available through JPC = www.jpc.de

Kirkpatrick DG Archive Mono 1956 LP, recently
rereleased on CD in a bargainpriced 8 CD box.

Both are preauthentic renderings, typical of their time, but on the other hand, both were very influential musicians in their time. Walcha plays on an two manual Ammer with 16f, Kirkpatrick on a similar Neupert, Typical they both play in constant tempo with a minimum of agogics,and ritardando only in the end of sections. Both are indeed brilliant virtuosi, Kirkpatricks tempi are often very fast, but every note can easily be heard. Both has a structural wiew of the music, using registration to clarify structure, most evident in the concertlike preludes, changing between a tutti and a solo registration as in the Italian Concerto. Otherwise changes of registration are made for variation in repetitions of sections in the dancemovements, and we get no extra embellishments like those we have been used to since the HIP movement. Indeed we get e.g. the sarabande of suite no4 played twice and each time completely "naked". Nor do they use much arpeggio. They play the autentic embellishments but nothing else. Kirkpatrick has an irritating habit of antecipating some of the mordents. As to articulation Kirkpatrick uses much legato, whereas Walcha articulates more differentiated sometimes with odd bindings, somtimes with grotesque staccato. With both the voiceleading is exemplary clear and present. Walchas touch is as RdS has pointed out a manual tracker action organ touch and the result is a very uniform touch, whereas Kirkpatrick has a very variated and telling touch. Kirkpatrick though as a whole has got the most organlike sound, colourful and "registrated". Walchas sound gives me rather associations in the direction of black. Neither Walcha nor Kirkpatrick uses much expressive microagogics, but the expression is created by the overall affect of the individual movements. Often represented affects are joy, reflected sadness, and particulary often extasis, if you may call this an affect.
Both play with lots of rhytmic energy, surely some will find this a too mechanical way of playing, but it is this - and their overwhelming virtuosity - which creates the extasis.
Still I find that both represent a predominantly cerebral
and very interesting approach, the effects (affects) being evoked by entirely rational means.
The recorded sound is adequate, not more than that.
For someone very interested in the music or in the history of interpretation both are mandatory, but for others they can for stylistical reasons never be a first choice.

 

Dear Tones: Did you like it?