Why do most people say that 8th notes should be detached when playing Bach on piano?
IMO, Bach is very much "pure music", and one should make whatever use one can of the instrument to hand to realise it.
Why limit yourself to emulating the sound of a technologically inferior instrument? When playing any instrument, I appreciate it mostly when you make use of its potential as good as you can.Also, I'm not sure if your assumptions are true at all:Regarding legato on a harpsicord being impossible, quite a bold statement if you ask me, not sure if it's based on anything other than hear-say... legato is just releasing a note only when the next one is sounding already.In fact, the harpsicord was a much more resonant sounding instrument than the piano (longer decay time of sound after key release) so using pedal, but well-dosed, makes sense to me. Bach was known for creating complex harmonic textures, not from chords or arpeggios but from counterpoint, so harmonies stemming from parts of several voices that come together. Using the sustain pedal in a smart way enables these harmonies to sing through any other sympathetic strings on the piano, an effect that the harpsicord with its much lower string tension will always produce when played on.
I would add that with regard to tone colour variety and dynamic range, no other single instrument can even come close, so don't even try.
I agree up to a point. In the better transcriptions (Liszt, Busoni inter alia), quite a bit of what is going on really only makes sense if you take into account the organ effect that they were trying to ... not exactly reproduce, but "reflect"? It's not so much trying to reproduce the sound of an organ on a piano as trying to colour the piano in an organ-like way.
I do hope that you are not referring to a tracker pipe organ as being "a technologically inferior instrument". It does have one particular limitation which is perhaps -- but only perhaps -- relevant, and that is it does not permit of rapid repetition, but neither do organs with electric action; the pipe simply won't respond that fast -- it's not just the action.My point with that is that if you seriously want to play piano transcriptions of organ music -- Baroque or not, it doesn't matter -- kindly take the characteristics of the instrument into consideration, particularly with regard to tempo (I would add that with regard to tone colour variety and dynamic range, no other single instrument can even come close, so don't even try).With regard to the comment on legato on the harpsichord -- of course legato is possible. Why not? And reasonable use of the sustain pedal can -- sometimes -- help in Baroque music. However, I beg to differ on "longer decay time of sound after key release". Not if the dampers are correctly adjusted. Which, of course, they often aren't, being rather fiddly. The sound should stop almost immediately, much like a piano.
Why do most people say that 8th notes should be detached when playing Bach on piano? I've heard that it is because the harpsichord(the instrument Bach wrote for) couldn't play legato, but why should a pianist adjust his playing to sound like the harpsichord? Obviously, one shouldn't use Romantic style pedaling in Bach, but what is wrong with using the pedal?
The use of the pedal ....would have been frowned upon in Bach's time as "impure".
Entirely speculative, as it didn't exist. What we do know is that many composers (not Baroque, admittedly) very much liked it's possibilities as soon as they had the opportunity.Beethoven being a notable case in point.
Bach's works are all based on his rules
@ j_menzFuch catalogued already existing rules. He didn't invent them.One thing I know: with the advent of the pedal, good fugue writing was abandoned. I don't think this was a coincidence, because they are inherently in conflict. Different tone ideals, different, more "vertical" listening.
I agree with you. I just remembered that in a book by Ralph Kirkpatrick titled Interpreting Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, he explains that Bach's keyboard music is not idiomatic keyboard music. So when I hear people say that Bach should only be played on the harpsichord(think Wanda Landowska) I don't agree because his music is not idiomatic keyboard music.
One thing I know: with the advent of the pedal, good fugue writing was abandoned.
Really? The Hammerklavier fugue is rubish? Chopin, Schumann, Mendelsohhn, Liszt, Czerny? Shostakovitch, Busoni, Kapustin, Hindemith, Sorabji, Hinton? Stravinsky (Soulima), Diamond, Madsen, Johnston, Martin, Zalteretsky? ALL rubbish?You really do need to get out more.
Did I say that everyone after Bach wrote "rubbish" for the piano? I implied that systematic GOOD fugue writing for the instrument was abandoned because pedal usage goes against its nature, and the pedal is "the soul of the piano" (c) as an instrument. Mozart wrote very good fugues in his masses, for example, and I know that the modern composers are trying to revive something of the art (the emphasis is on trying). I said nothing about the usage of counterpoint as such in the whole piano literature after Bach. Except from the Shostakovich fugues, though (where you are also best off by avoiding pedal usage), I have trouble finding GOOD fugues anywhere especially written for the instrument.
DI implied that systematic GOOD fugue writing for the instrument was abandoned because pedal usage goes against its nature, and the pedal is "the soul of the piano" (c) as an instrument. Mozart wrote very good fugues in his masses, for example, and I know that the modern composers are trying to revive something of the art (the emphasis is on trying). I said nothing about the usage of counterpoint as such in the whole piano literature after Bach. Except from the Shostakovich fugues, though (where you are also best off by avoiding pedal usage), I have trouble finding GOOD fugues anywhere especially written for the instrument.
Re Bach and his reaction to Cristofori's new invention: his principle complaint, as I recall from my reading, was faintness of tone in the upper register. Something many European pianos (Schimmel comes to mind) and some Asian pianos (Yamaha) today have corrected. Cristofori was quite taken aback by the well-known Bach's negative reaction to his novel Pianoforte. However, he sucked it up and, as mentioned above, much improved his design.
Firstly, you start off by seeking to suggest not only that you "know" something (appearing thereby to imply that it must be read as though true) but that you're content to do so without providing any evidence in support of it.
Secondly, you also perceive that the right pedal is somehow by definition "inherently in conflict" with the very nature of polyphonic keyboard writing, once again without providing any supportive evidence as to why you believe this to be the case (and you also omit to comment on your perception of the middle pedal in this context).
Thirdly, you write about "good" fugal writing for keyboard without defining what this might be
I I must disagree fundamentally with your premise here - a premise which suggests that the many so many composers who continued to write fugues for the piano after the right pedal became an established and accepted part of the instrument were nevertheless for the most part incapable of doing it well - a devastating indictment indeed, considering the vast wealth of fugal material for piano composed in the past two centuries!
Most modernists (not only in music) are out because I don't want to work too hard to determine what's happening with the tonal centers, which are traditionally a key element in fugues.
Hmm... you are aware that the first ever known example of twelve tone serial technique is one of Bach's fugues......BWV846.......aren't you?
P.S.: Everything I wrote above about a certain balance and the compromise/corruption that occurs in the structure in Bach's music for keyboard by using 19th-Century ideals of "legato" and pedal is one of the things that made Horowitz decide never to play Bach in public. I am quite sure he felt the same way, especially since he knew the "soul" of the piano better than anybody else did.
Horowitz said he didn't play more Bach in public because he considered it "too small" for a concert hall. I have taken that to mean "too intimate". Your interpretation appears to take great liberties with his own stated view, and looks more like projection than analysis.
Whatever it looks like and whatever Horowitz said himself (we have another gigantic thread here on what Horowitz said, but actually meant), it is an element that cannot be excluded, and since the man has been dead for some time, trying to "prove" anything is pointless.
Back to Bach's music on the piano. As I said before: all it requires to understand my posts in this topic in the right context is good ears and the will to focus on purity of sound. If, after ample analysis in said direction, I turn out to be entirely wrong, you may consider my posts in this topic the delusion of an overworked student.
One doesn't have to be "learned" to "know". Anybody with ears and the right focus can find out the same things without needing evidence, sources to quote, etc.
The right pedal not only lengthens the tone: it changes its quality drastically. It "inflates" the tone, both horizontally and vertically.
Good ears and the will to focus are all that is required to "know". Do I really need to "prove" that using it at random to make Bach's music "playable" here and there necessarily corrupts and/or compromizes something essential?!
P.S.: The middle pedal was never the focus in this topic.
Bach's works for keyboard are perfect in both form and content, not only in the core notes we have to play, but also in the harmonics/overtones created above the music that are the result (this can be heard, but I am confident that it can and will be proven in future with mathematical diagrams, but I am not qualified to do that).
Besides, his music for keyboard also has certain spiritual qualities; it cures both the body and the soul. This is "good". All others coming after him do not have that balance in form and content in their works for keyboard, and are therefore at least a little less than "good".
I never intended to accuse anyone after Bach of "incompetence", etc. On the contrary: they are often so smart and competent, that they miss the spiritual point in what they do with their intellect. One cannot pour just any old content into any old form and then tell oneself that the result must be "good". I can appreciate the "fugue" in the Hammerklavier, for example, for certain qualities of beauty, but certainly not for the fact that is a perfect fugue. It is simply too weird and grotesque to be just that. The same with the fugue in Liszt's sonata. While it has its function within that sonata, I cannot recognize that as more than just an attempt at writing a fugue.
Most modernists (not only in music) are out because I don't want to work too hard to determine what's happening with the tonal centers, which are traditionally a key element in fugues. Art should speak for itself, and everybody should be able to enjoy it, learned or not. If one needs to be "learned" to enjoy it, or if one needs an explanation, it is craft, not art. If it's not art, it can't be "good enough".
It was actually a Gottfried Silbermann piano that Bach first saw. It was basically a reproduction of the Cristofori design, though. His initial reaction was as you said, and is often cited as being the end of the matter. Silbermann, however, made changes to the design in response to Bach's criticisms, and a later version met with Bach's approval. He even acted as agent for Silbermann for a time thereafter.
To many readers, however, asserting that you "know" something implies not only that you do indeed "know" it but also that it can be "known" as it is a fact, whereas in this matter your view is inevitably based upon a personal subjective response with which not everyone else will agree.
Of course that is true - and writing fugues (or indeed anything else) for a piano whose right pedal does that is obviously a different matter to writing for a harpsichord or other keyboard instrument that does not have such a device but, to me, this not only enhances rather than detracts from the polyphonic ability of the piano but also raises all manner of new means of achieving contrapuntal clarity and balance in the hands of an expert and sensitive player.
Very different in many ways though Szymanowski's three piano sonatas are, the one thing that they have in common is that each concludes witha fugue; have a look at those fugues in the second and third sonatas and you should be able to see that these are excellent specimens of their type, for all that they would be impossible of execution without a right pedal.
Have you stopped to think about the likewise very different tonal qualities of the organs of Bach's day and, say, the best of Cavaillé-Coll or the finest English Romantic instruments designed and made by Harrison & Harrison and Willis and, if so, what would you say about the suitability of Bach's organ fugues played on these more modern instruments? "Good" ears - "good" fugues; again, you're relying on a "good" deal of subjectivity here!
Well, it's been part of most grand pianos for a century and a quarter and, as you did not exclude it from your remarks, how could anyone reading what you wrote be expected to have advance knowledge that it did not embrace this device and its use? That said, what do you think about it in the context of writing fugues for the piano?
I agree that music should be open to all with the ears to hear it and an enquiring mind and an emotional palette capable of appreciating the material to which they listen, but an absence of academic "learning" does not of itself imply that the listener doesn't have to make an effort; you "don't want to work too hard" - well, that's a pity, because the composer has worked hard for your benefit, be He Bach or be he Shostakovich!
My experience is empirical. I don't know if that implies "subjective" in all cases.
I hinted at a possibilitiy to test it that is open for all. If one is not lazy and or biased, I expect the results to be the same for all. Another side of the story, though, is whether everyone thinks the game is worth the candle. It is so much easier to drown music into pedal than to try and find out what Bach would have had in mind.
If the composer clearly and deliberately anticipated its usage, then who am I to argue?
P.S.: To play polyphonic music, one has to be an expert player in all cases, with or without pedal.
I never denied the CRAFT present in later works. As I said, if the composer clearly envisaged the usage of pedal in his/her works, then who am I to go against it?
No, I haven't, that's why I tried to focus on keyboard music only. Try and play a 3-or 4-voice Bach fugue on one manual of the organ only (even a very modern one) and you will see what you have to do in terms of articulation to make all voices audible. That's the approach you need for the piano. It *can* be done, but it is extremely difficult. In the process, one may gradually find out that any other approach is actually not more than a substitute for the real thing.
Also, let's not forget that Beethoven once said that the piano is an "inadequate instrument". Although I do have some ideas about why he said that, I will not go into why he said that in this topic. By the way, he never said that about any other instrument. For some reason I cannot explain, I suspect he would say the same thing about our contemporary piano.
If the usage was deliberately anticipated by the composer in the ultimate sound effect, then I see no reason not to use it to sustain a single tone or a group of tones. I don't see, however, how it could make a very busy fugue a lot more transparent.
I do lots of analyzing already, but for other purposes. My problem is that if I have to approach a work of art with academic knowledge first to understand it intuitively, then something's wrong with the work itself. I have the same problem with other art forms.
"What Bach would have in mind" would inevitably have changed over a period of time in any case; no one's ideas are set in stone in the way that you appear to imply (if indeed I understand what you are suggesting hre).
No, indeed - what you did, however, was to suggest that, in general terms, fugues by post-Bach composers are generally inferior to Bach's, especially if they make deliberate use of a device that's been part of the piano for two centuries but which you nevertheless appear to believe runs counter to good contrapuntal presentation; you also made observations about the "spiritual" quality of Bach's fugues that you imply is no longer present in the fugues of most subsequent composers, whatever the merits of their compositional craft might be - and, although it's not a keyboard fugue, the one that opens Beethoven's C# minor quartet has elicited no response from you - but this is again an entirely subjective response and comparison rather than one with which we would all identify.
I thought I had made it clear enough that what I said pertained to fugues for keyboard (meaning: the piano and all its predecessors) only? I even mentioned that Mozart continued to write very good fugues in his masses, etc. A choir, an orchestra, an organ, a STRING quartet etc. does not suffer from the limitations I implied because they do not have a device that lengthens and inflates tone as artificially as the pedal on the piano does.
Still, the non-legato sound ideal for ALL instruments from the time can be understood from the many sources we have. A lot was not indicated explicitly; it was simply understood, and it must have had something to do with the place where such music was usually executed: churches and cathedrals with very particular acoustics (you stand in the middle of the church, you clap in your hands, and complete sound decay lasts as much as 9 seconds!). Just to make sure: this is not something I *know*. It is also not necessarily my *taste* or some weird delusion of mine; it is something I deduced with critical listening and thinking.
EDIT: As to how some composer could or could not have evolved in his taste, and how little that actually has to do with the execution of the works they wrote before they would or would not have "matured": Whenever pianists play Mozart too "thickly" with lots of legato, pedal, etc., what you get is Beethoven, and more specifically: very poor Beethoven. In other words: breach of style, because it is "too heavy" to be Mozart, but "not heavy enough" to be Beethoven. Just to make sure: this is not simply a matter of subjectivity on my part!
Would you seek to advocate universal interpretations to the exent that everyone's sound the same?
Yes, you had indeed made that clear, but my reference to the C# minor quartet arose from your suggestion that there was a "spiritual" aspect of Bach's fugues (whether or not for keyboard) that is lacking in the fugues of subsequent composers and, as you'd made the remakrks that you had about that in the Hammerklavier, it occurred to me to wonder what you think about the C# minor quartet fugue purely from the "spiritual" standpoint.
If Mr. Ahinton can get WFMT-FM national classical radio service to play a Szimanowski or Scorabi fugue, I would be glad to listen.
Do crystal sets pick up FM?
Bach was quite a practical man, so I can only think that, if he had played one of our modern pianos, he would have praised its capabilities.
Although poorly engineered, the following recordings show how it can be done convincingly without pedal and with a non-legato approach:
Topic: Playing Bach on Piano 