Playing Bach on Piano

[johannesbrahms]

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 piano is by nature a more expressive instrument than the harpsichord, so why can't a pianist make full use of its capabilities? 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. Can anyone shed light on this? Thank you in advance!

[symphonicdance]

I think Angela Hewitt's DVD on playing Bach can give you one of the many different thoughts and views.  Hope it's available at your public library nearby.

[indianajo]

JS Bach keyboard pieces have a lot of partial scale runs that don't, IMHO, sound very good with pedal.  
I've heard, for example, Toccata & Fugue in D min in a large church with a 2 second echo.  The player executed the runs very fast, and while I admire his technical skill, the notes of the runs all ran together from where I was sitting.  
My teacher believed in Bach-Busoni Two Part Inventions, and I love his suggestions for detached notes versus slurred.  Such an interesting texture.  All detached is boring, all slurred is boring.  I love that G. Schirmer book.  
I'm not a purist, I love Wendy Carlos version of a Brandenberg Concerto on synthesizer, for example.  I played 2 part inventions to satisfy my teacher back when, but have put some different interpretations on them for my own pleasure.  For example I accent certain notes over the other notes, which gives it a whole new texture, and one that was obviously impossible when he was alive, except on a 3 manual pipe organ.  I think JSB would have loved the capabilities of a grand piano.  Near the end, when he wasn't allowed to do art pieces often at the pipe organ, he was writing pieces for 3 and 4 harpsichords plus strings, that were performed at the coffee house in town.  "GIVE ME SOME VOLUME, PLEEZE" I can see him begging.  "If we could just build a brick wall right here and take the tops off the harpsichords and hang them leaning towards the audience from the ceiling?"

[j_menz]

Why do most people say that 8th notes should be detached when playing Bach on piano?

Most people, I think, don't. It's just the ones who do say it loudest and most pompously.

There is also a misconception that Bach hated the piano when he heard it (in a very early incarnation). That was true of the very first one he encountered, but he actually later went on to appreciate them more.

IMO, Bach is very much "pure music", and one should make whatever use one can of the instrument to hand to realise it.

[johannesbrahms]

IMO, Bach is very much "pure music", and one should make whatever use one can of the instrument to hand to realise it.

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.

[landru]

As far as the detached eighth notes and legato 16th (or whatever) prescription goes, I think it is just a shorthand way of letting the ear differentiate the two lines. The ear not only picks up differences in volume and pitch, but in duration (obviously). If the eighth note line was played legato it blurs with the other line (say, 16ths) that is also played legato - at least it does to my ear! My ear definitely hears the detachedness when I play it that way.

There are other ways of showing the two (or more) lines (volume of course), but detached/legato is perhaps easier to begin with. And sometimes you want the two lines to merge (like in fugues), so then the detached feel is dropped.

[gyzzzmo]

As long as a student (or professional) approaches in a sort of mathematical way i'm pretty open to it. Nobody really knows for sure how it should be done anyway.

[iansinclair]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could ask the man?  Oh well...

Landru has a very good point: detached vs. legato can be a very very good way of differentiating two (or more) lines in the counterpoint.  Volume can also be used -- although I would approach that with a great deal of caution; if you are using much in the way of smooth crescendo or decrescendo, you are doing something which Back (and other Baroque musicians) had no access to at all, so you are adding something quite foreign to the music.

Indianajo also brings up a good point -- not directly relevant to the thread -- but good nonetheless.  It is very common for Bach to be played much too fast, particularly the organ works (like the prelude and fugue which he mentions!).  While rapid execution may be spectacular, and show off the show off's chops, it is very common for the result to be impenetrable mush.  All of Bach's organ works were written for tracker organs, and most of them for rather large ones in rather large spaces.  The instrument itself does not respond instantly when you press a key -- particularly for lower notes.  There is a very definite delay which must be allowed for.  The keys (or pedals) do not permit rapid repetition.  Then, in larger spaces, one must allow for the reverberation of the space (this is true of all organ music, not just Baroque).  If the notes are played too fast, they overlap -- in very large spaces, the reverb can be nearly as long as a poor grand piano with the pedal held down.

Take it easy.  Take your time (but make it very precise indeed!).  You will be much happier...

[thesixthsensemusic]

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.

[iansinclair]

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 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.

[j_menz]

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.

[iansinclair]

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.

Oh I agree, absolutely, and with the better transcriptions -- as you say, Liszt or Busoni among others -- the result is quite satisfactory -- even to an organist's ear! -- for Baroque music.  I might even go so far as to say that in some cases the resulting piece of music is superior to the original, provided as always that it is played sensitively and well (one does have to remember that even Bach had his off days...).
The art of the transcription has always rather fascinated me -- how to get a piece of music written for one instrument or ensemble to convey much of the composer's intention on a different medium or ensemble.  Sometimes the transcribed piece is very different -- Pictures at an Exhibition comes to mind immediately! -- and yet familiar.  Rather like translating poetry -- which sometimes works and sometimes just doesn't.

[thesixthsensemusic]

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.

Sorry, but I never said the organ was technologically inferior. I mentioned the harpsicord only. Which does in fact happen to be more resonant and has a longer decay time mostly because of its lower sting tension, which allows for more reverberation of played notes. I was referring to the harpsicord mentioned by the topic's opener only.

[dima_76557]

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 goal is not to immitate the harpsichord, but to keep the polyphony (horizontal lines) in Bach's work clear and clean enough to be distinguished separately and enjoyed in context. The use of the pedal and of legato (especially overlapping) gives very subtle tonal conflicts [in the harmonics] that, while sometimes acceptable for contemporary ears (with our past of [post-]Romantic music and Jazz), would have been frowned upon in Bach's time as "impure".

P.S.: I am MORE than surprised about the qualities that are attributed to the harpsichord by some of the forum members here in this thread. Sounds like no one here has ever played Bach on an authentic instrument.

[gyzzzmo]

Who cares that a piece might be written for some ancient organ or harpichord?
You people might not have noticed, but a piano is a -very- different instrument. Therefor you can't immitate those instruments on a piano, and nobody knows if Bach would have wanted that.
And about speed? Just make it sound good!

[j_menz]

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.

[dima_76557]

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.

You may want to read Fuch's "Gradus ad Parnassum" (Bach's works are all based on his rules) and see how particular they were in tonal requirements, how intervals should move to avoid tonal conflicts, etc. Even intervals like the perfect fourth were considered DISSONANCES that must be immediately resolved, can you imagine? This has, of course, to do with how the harmonics (overtones) work. Pedal would most certainly have been in conflict with their perception of consoncance and dissonance. Even overlapping with the fingers was condemned as we can read in CPE Bach's writings on keyboard technique.

[j_menz]

Bach's works are all based on his rules

Given Bach was 40 when it was written, and already an established composer, I suspect that is not true, though they may be in agreement with those rules.

I have a copy by my bedside.

[dima_76557]

@ j_menz

Fuch 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.

[iansinclair]

@ j_menz

Fuch 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.

Thank you, Dima! 

[indianajo]

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.

Interesting about Wanda Landowska.  I had never heard of her, but stumbled on her Goldberg Variations LP two years ago in a charity resale shop. The LP probably sold about 1956-58 from the packaging style and monaural version.  I like it much better than Glenn Gould's GV that all the hifi magazines went so ga-ga over. (I bought the Glenn Gould 2 part Inventions  LP, really much preferred my own playing of Busoni transcriptions even age 18).  
One has to remember in 1956 harpsichords were as rare as hen's teeth in the US. Probably harpsichords mostly needed repair  in war damaged Europe.   So a little overemphasis of a forgotten instrument was in order by Ms Landowska. Really the popularity of the harpsichord here started with Mitch Miller's insistance it be a part of "Come Inna My House"  a 1958? pop hit sung by Rosemary Clooney.  Anyway two years later hip coastal studios and concert venues had harpsichords, moving out from there. In my opinion.  Love is Blue about 1968 came at about the pinacle of the pop harpsichord craze, IMHO. Now every music school has one, but they are still rare enough I've never been allowed to touch one.  One is not even for rent with a studio in this flyover city.  But Ms Landowska was a pioneer whose work was at the start of a movement.  Wonder why the virginal never came back, for example?  

[thesixthsensemusic]

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.

Agreed. And for all we know, Bach was a revolutionary keyboard composer, I am sure he would have been eager to use any innovations in the instruments he was writing for if he found them to be well-developed enough;

he apparently tested a fortepiano around 1731 and was not sure about wether the idea behind it was well-implemented enough, as the sound was not a match for the harpsicord, despite its dynamical possibilities. Later when he played king Friedrich's more developed fortepiano about 15 years later he fully approved of it.

[j_menz]

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. 

[dima_76557]

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.

[ahinton]

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.

No, you didn't say that; what you said was
"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."
Three issues here.

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, even to you, let alone allowing for consideration as to whether and to what extent anyone else might agree with what you think makes good fugal writing for the piano; you also disregard the vital fact that not all poplyphonic writing is fugal in any case when you write specifically about what you perceive as a conflict between keyboard fugue writing and the right pedal.

I think therefore that you have quite a lot of embellishing and explanation to provide and, as one of the composers on j_menz's list (even though I have but two extant piano fugues to my name, specifically the double one in my Variations and Fugue on a theme of Grieg and the triple one in my Sequentia Claviensis), 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!

Best,

Alistair

[thesixthsensemusic]

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.

There were composers like Beethoven and Brahms who proved one can write great fugues for the piano. But they just aren't that common, rather like the old dance-based keyboard suite grew out of fashion, albeit with some exceptions...

[j_menz]

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.

I was referring quite specifically to the fugues written for the piano by the composers I listed. Not their works in general. The list is by no means exhaustive.

If you are having trouble finding GOOD fugues written for the piano in the last 200 years, either your definition of "good" is so limited as to be idiosyncratic and useless as general commentary, or you're just not trying.

[gvans]

I'm playing two great fugues right now, the Brahms Op. 38 Klavier/Cello sonata final movement, and the fugue in the Liszt sonata. And, yes, I do use pedal.

As for Bach, Andras Schiff does make a good case for eschewing pedal (not chewing it, mind you). I think it's truly a matter of taste. One can cut lots of corners with the pedal, and not using it, or using it sparingly, can do worlds for your technique.

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.

[j_menz]

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.

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.

[dima_76557]

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.

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. More below.

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).

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.

Thirdly, you write about "good" fugal writing for keyboard without defining what this might be

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 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!

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".

[j_menz]

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?

More importantly, you appear to confound "what a fugue is" with "stuff like what Bach wrote".  Bach certainly wrote fugues, and excellent ones at that, but he wrote much else besides that were polyphonic, but not fugal. Further, the fugue form is not limited to what Bach did, and has proven as capable of adaption as any other form - perhaps moreso than most.  Beethoven's approach to the fugue, as evidenced both in the Hammerklavier and the Grosse Fugue is to adapt and extend the form. You wouldn't criticise Beethoven's sonatas for not being Scarlatti - it's just as ridiculous to apply the same logic to his fugues.

[dima_76557]

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?

I am very well aware that Bach experimented. I was talking about his works for keyboard in general, that are so perfect they seem to have been dictated to him from universe. I don't need intellectual arguments to be able to enjoy all of it.

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.

[j_menz]

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.

[dima_76557]

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.

[j_menz]

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.

The "what" of what Horowitz said is well documented. The "what he meant" of it is conjectural, but your interpretation seems a stretch, putting it mildly.

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.

Underworked, methinks, in terms of breadth (I do not suggest so in terms of depth).

[ahinton]

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.

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.

The right pedal not only lengthens the tone: it changes its quality drastically. It "inflates" the tone, both horizontally and vertically.

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.

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?!

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!

P.S.: The middle pedal was never the focus in this topic.

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?

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).

But when played on a modern harpsichord and/or in different kinds of acoustic to those to which Bach himself would have been accustomed, those harmonics/overtones et al that influence the overall tonal quality of what the listener hears also play a part in the nature of the results. Unless you believe that Bach's music should only ever be performed on insruments of Bach's time and of the kind with which he would personally have been familiar, your argument does not hold here - and if you do believe that His music should be played only on those instruments that he knew, I would draw your attention to a remark once made by English composer Robert Simpson on this subject wherein he observed that we cannot listen to Bach's music today with the ears of his contemporaries because we have listened to Xenakis (now I've never heard Simpson mention Xenakis in any other context, but here he cites him to make a very valid and important point).

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".

Whilst I yield to no one in my admiration, respect and love for Bach (and remember Mauricio Kagel's remark that not all musicians believe in God but they all believe in J S Bach!), you really are onto fanciful thoughts here; I'm not even for one moment suggesting that you are wrong in principle, but to suggest that Bach's keyboard music (what about all of His other music?) "cures both the body and the soul" carries with it the implication that its listeners are somehow by definition physically and spiritually ill before listening - and whilst emulating Bach or being able to write a wonderfully as He did are respectively pointless and hopelessly impossible tasks, let's not forget that His example and influence stretches way beyond His own time and that, accordngly, his work has affected that of many so many later composers, from Mozart to - well, the present writer, if you like!

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.

Well, the principal point here, as earlier, is, of course, that not everyone will agree with you and that what you're putting forward here are views, not facts. Why would a Beethoven fugue not have "spiritual" qualities? (whatever they may be - and in order to discuss this intelligently and informatively you'd have to be able to analyse examples from that specific standpoint). Would the remarks that you make about the Hammerklavier fugue apply equally, for example, to the fugal first movement of Beethoven's C# minor quartet?

Like everything else in life, fugues move on and, again like everything else in life, diversity always increases - witness the fact that, while Boulez was writing his Second Piano Sonata, his elder compatriot Dutilleux was writing fugues (albeit as compositional exercises). Let's also not forget that fugue was around long before Bach and that, whilst His many examples are truly astonishing, they are themselves very different in character to anyone's fugues from, say, the latter half of the 17th century.

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".

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!

Best,

Alistair

[gvans]

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.

Many thanks for the clarification, j_menz. You are quite right, and I just had a great time reading about Silbermann, a famous and wealthy maker of organs, a guy who died from tin/lead poisoning (probably from working with the pipes), who was for a long time credited with the invention of the piano until historians made matters right and granted the honor to Cristofori.

An interesting quote confirming your statement (from Wikipedia, take it for what you will):

"The 18th-century musician Johann Friedrich Agricola tells a story about the relationship of Silbermann, Johann Sebastian Bach, and pianos. After Silbermann had completed two instruments, Agricola says, he showed them to Bach, who replied critically, saying that the tone was weak in the treble and the keys were hard to play. Silbermann was stung and angered by the criticism, but ultimately took it to heart and was able to improve his pianos (exactly how is not known, but it may have been the result of Silbermann's encountering Cristofori's most mature instruments). The improved Silbermann pianos met with Bach's "complete approval" ("völlige Gutheißung"), and indeed a preserved sales voucher dated May 8, 1749 shows that Bach acted as an intermediary for Silbermann in the sale of one of his pianos."

Where does this leaves us with the damper pedal and Bach's music? Since he died in 1750, and only started liking the pianoforte in 1749, an instrument yet to have a modern pedal, all is conjecture.

We may still, however, continue to argue about fugues, good vs. bad, the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, and other enlightening topics.

Stay calm, and carry on.

[dima_76557]

@ ahinton

In anticipation of a more solid reply:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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?

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 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!

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.

[j_menz]

Can I throw a little spanner into the argument here. My aim is to perhaps illuminate rather than just confuse matters.

Since we keep coming back to Bach and pedal, I wonder if it might not be apt to consider the transcriptions of his organ works by Liszt and Busoni.

They are, as it happens, transcriptions rather than paraphrases, making an attempt to realise the works on a piano.  Both were skilled pianists, and both were thoroughly familiar with Bach's keyboard works.

Both explicitly indicate the use of pedal.

Examples:

Busoni:

Liszt:

[ahinton]

My experience is empirical. I don't know if that implies "subjective" in all cases.

Ah - well, at least this is something that you say you don't "know"! That's progress, i think...

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.

But surely no one is suggesting that such misuse of the right pedal is to be advocated, either in contrapuntal writing or otherwise? "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).

If the composer clearly and deliberately anticipated its usage, then who am I to argue?

Fair point - so why appear to do it?!

P.S.: To play polyphonic music, one has to be an expert player in all cases, with or without pedal.

"Expert" in the sense of being able to do all manner of things in the practice studio, yes, of course; Chopin - who I think we'd all agree knew a thing or three about thepiano(!) - advocated practice without pedal or with very sparing use of it, albeit not all the time!

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, 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.

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.

The organ is a keyboard instrument! OK, so you mean a keyboard stringed instrument - and I agree with what you say about articulation, but when you imply that articulation and right pedal use are somehow antonymous, not only does your argument collapse but your respect for the modern piano appears to collapse with it. Never mind just the right pedal, though - Bach's fugues would sound very different played without right pedal on a Bösendorfer 290 than they would on a Bechstein in any case, since their tonal qualities (to which you alluded previously) are very different to one another; are both equally acceptable to you?

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.

Quite possibly - but then he would not have been alone in feeling like that. It is clear to me that much of the most adventurous piano music in the six decades or so from, say, the birth of Chopin is particularly suggestive of the need for pianos to develop in order to accommodate it properly, in terms of projection, tonal qualities, sustaining power, clarity of presentation and much more - and, of couse, piano design and manufacture followed suit to the extgent that the piano of Liszt's final years was a very diffeent animal to the ones for which Haydn and Mozrt wrote sonatas and other works. I would not have the arrogance or temerity to suggestg what Beethoven might have said about any of our variety of contemporary pianos, especially if, like yourself, I could not "explain" such an assertion...

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.

Have a look at those Szymanowski examples that I mention - or the fugue at the end of Godowsky's Passacaglia on the opening theme of Schubert's 8th symphony - or any one of the many piano fugues by Sorabji - and tell us that such "busy fugues" could be made to make any sense at all, let alone "transparently", without judicious use of the right pedal and sometimes also the middle pedal.

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.

But did anyone here advocate such an approach?

Best,

Alistair

[dima_76557]

"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).

[Just a quick reaction because I have to go.]

I know that argument is often used, but it doesn't hold either. We have what we have, and nobody can even assume or say for sure HOW exactly Bach would have evolved in his taste. If we want to play music by Bach on ANY instrument, I feel we are therefore bound to a certain extent to what he left us, based on the sound ideals of his time. Mozart, for example, kept the "non-legato" ideals of the time to such an extent that Beethoven called his style of playing "choppy" (presumably because there was not enough legato). If Mozart kept the tradition, then at least theoretically, Bach could just as well have had the same "taste", and legato would therefore be breach of style.

[more later]

[dima_76557]

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!

[ahinton]

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.

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.

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.

This is correct, of course - but, in so being, it serves to illustrate how performances in different acoustics can have a material effect on how they sound and, whilst acoustic reverberation (or indeed artificial ditto) is not the same phenomenon as the sustaining facilities offered by the right and middle pedals of the piano, there can be no doubt that the way the music sounds will vary from place to place as well as from instrument to instrument. As an example of the latter that is not entirely pedal-oriented, the sustaining power of the notes in the top octave of most modern Bösendorfer 290 instruments is greater than that on many other contemporary pianos; OK, Bach did not use such registers, but the point remains nevertheless. It's also interesting to try to play, for example, a ff chord on a Steinway D and the same at the same dynamic level on a Bösendorfer 290 without right pedal and hold them until their sound becomes inaudible; you might be surprised how much longer the latter remains within earshot!

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?

Best,

Alistair

[dima_76557]

Would you seek to advocate universal interpretations to the exent that everyone's sound the same?

Most probably not, but I am a student in a musical institution, not a mature artist, and one of the parameters I am judged by is "style". If I don't play "in style", I will get a bad mark for that. My personal philosophy on certain musical affairs does nothing to save me from being flunked.

I do have to say that whenever I am criticized with how I played this or that passage in Mozart, the criticism is usually justified: it sounds so much better if you keep it as transparent as possible (= minimize pedal usage and avoid "thick" legato).

[dima_76557]

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.

Very spiritual indeed (based on his Messa solemnis), but of a different kind than the "cleaner", more neutral and liberating spirituality in Bach. It would take far more than a couple of posts to talk about that, so I suggest leaving it at that in order not to confuse the topic we're in.

[indianajo]

If Mr. Ahinton can get WFMT-FM national classical radio service to play a Szimanowski or Scorabi fugue, I would be glad to listen.  Maybe get Exploring Music to cover the fugue over four centuries.  But until I hear something (and I don't do U-tube, too much investment in short lived imported hardware is required)  I suspect modern fugue is academic blather like most of the other academy and conservatory respected compositions I've heard out of the twentieth century.  Or salt some greatest hits of Scorabi LP's in the charity resale shops around here, I can afford those. See the modern composer thread to see how few living or recently dead composers I respect. There is way too much dissonance in modern academic music for my taste.   I'll go as far as Stravinsky; or Shostakovich only when he was trying to not annoy Comrade Stalin.
Standing by to be educated. Heaps of words won't do it. I discovered JS Bach on the FM radio about 1962; the musical education establishment was not involved.  Maybe there is another consonance genius out there.   

[j_menz]

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? 

[indianajo]

Do crystal sets pick up FM?  

No but tube radios assembled by my neighbors in Philidelphia or Chicago do.  If you keep the capacitors up to date.  
I'll only use devices built by  ***fs  - as long as I pulled them out of the trash or one step ahead of it, the charity resale shop.  I just got a box of new electronic parts in today.  60% built by my neighbors (capacitors, temp sensors), 30% built by people in places I wouldn't mind living, 10% from a country where the public schools fall down on kids, the milk was poisonous, the water resevoir is full of dead animals and complaints are  punishable by vanishment.

[dima_76557]

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.

IMHO, Bach would certainly appreciate his works being played on the modern piano, but it takes a distinguished architect to pull it off "in style". Although poorly engineered, the following recordings show how it can be done convincingly without pedal and with a non-legato approach:

[j_menz]

Although poorly engineered, the following recordings show how it can be done convincingly without pedal and with a non-legato approach:

 No-one has suggested it can't be, particularly in the hands of Richter.

His most public performance of one of the WTC P&Fs, though was not well received by those attending. Not that I'm suggesting they were a learned audience.