Playing Bach on Piano

[dima_76557]

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.

In this "business", the audience is ALWAYS right, learned or not. I didn't mean to say that Richter is "the only one", and/or that he does it always "right".
P.S.: I was told that initially, Richter had plans to become an architect. I think this certainly shows in the two examples.

[j_menz]

In this "business", the audience is ALWAYS right, learned or not.

That particular audience believed so, much more than most might. 

[gyzzzmo]

In this "business", the audience is ALWAYS right, learned or not.

Nope, the artist is always right. The public chooses to listen to him and the artist chooses whether to entertain or to do 'his' performance.

[dima_76557]

Nope, the artist is always right. The public chooses to listen to him and the artist chooses whether to entertain or to do 'his' performance.

In that case, the artist should play for himself or in an empty hall. Music is about communication, and you can't communicate anything to the audience you aim at if you don't keep their expectations and listening experience in mind.

[j_menz]

In that case, the artist should play for himself or in an empty hall. Music is about communication, and you can't communicate anything to the audience you aim at if you don't keep their expectations and listening experience in mind.

Nope, the artist is always right. The public chooses to listen to him and the artist chooses whether to entertain or to do 'his' performance.

The particular occassion I had in mind may perhaps illustrate something about this.  That occasion was the funeral of Stalin. Richter was "invited" to play and was flown back to Moscow, the sole passenger in a plane otherwise full of funerary wreaths. Just before doing so, he learned of the death of Prokofiev, then out of favour with the establishment. Richter played the "longest and most dense" (his description - I'm not actually sure which)  prelude and fugue form the WTC - neither appropriate to the occasion nor well received by the powers that be that constituted the audience.

It is an instance where the artist chose "whether to entertain or to do 'his' performance", and yet managed to "keep their expectations and listening experience in mind". I suspect in a way neither of you initially meant. 

[ahinton]

Nope, the artist is always right. The public chooses to listen to him and the artist chooses whether to entertain or to do 'his' performance.

Neither the artist nor his/her audience nor indeed even the composer is "always" right; all are humans!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

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:

But the above examples played by Richter are not good ones to illustrate your argument because neither even requires a lot of pedal and the semiquavers in each are in any case played legato!

If indeed Bach would have appreciated his works being played on a modern piano (and the fact that He might well have done so does not of itself determine that He would have appreciated them equally played on any and all modern pianos since, as we have established, modern pianos diffe considerably from one another), what make you appear to suppose that such appreciation on His part would not embrace differences in stylistic approach and the possibilities offered by the right pedal, the middle pedal and the carrying and sustaining power of such instruments? Were he to "appreciate" these instruments and were that appreciation to extend to the performance of his own keyboard music on them, He would surely have advocated approaches to such performances that were well suited to the instrument as well as to His music?

Bach, as you know, transcribed works by Vivaldi for the organ and, in turn, it would be useful, as j_menz has indeed suggested, for you to give due consideration to the obverse side of this particular coin by making a study of Liszt's and Busoni's (and others' too, but these will do well for now) transcriptions of Bach's organ works what is effectively "the modern piano" (since piano design has not changed as dramatically in the 20th century as it had in the 19th).

Best,

Alistair

[dima_76557]

But the above examples played by Richter are not good ones to illustrate your argument because neither even requires a lot of pedal and the semiquavers in each are in any case played legato!

I hear non-legato (I hear the attack of each tone separately without any attempts at weakening the blow). I hear him imitate other instruments on which legato was impossible; the metallic sound of some of the instruments at the time (more forcefully though), the weak sound of someone plucking the lute (the prelude in D major), etc. without any attempt at making it even sound like a piano. Any perceived legato effects here have to do with the acoustics of the castle it was recorded in. As you know, it was custom with Soviet artists to record the acoustics as well, and not play right into the microphone.

If indeed Bach would have appreciated his works being played on a modern piano (and the fact that He might well have done so does not of itself determine that He would have appreciated them equally played on any and all modern pianos since, as we have established, modern pianos diffe considerably from one another), what make you appear to suppose that such appreciation on His part would not embrace differences in stylistic approach and the possibilities offered by the right pedal, the middle pedal and the carrying and sustaining power of such instruments?

If he had indeed embraced the pedal as a tool, then he simply would have been forced to write differently (as all the others after him that embraced it), because it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep things clean with pedal, maintaining the old principles of consonance and dissonance.

[ahinton]

I hear non-legato (I hear the attack of each tone separately without any attempts at weakening the blow). I hear him imitate other instruments on which legato was impossible; the metallic sound of some of the instruments at the time (more forcefully though), the weak sound of someone plucking the lute (the prelude in D major), etc. without any attempt at making it even sound like a piano. Any perceived legato effects here have to do with the acoustics of the castle it was recorded in. As you know, it was custom with Soviet artists to record the acoustics as well, and not play right into the microphone.

Well, clearly we hear things differently! Legato is one thing; pedalling through a phrase is quite another. Bear in mind also that the WTC pieces, like many other works for stringed keyboard instruments, would often have been practised on clavichords which have differet tonal qualities again. You seem to have some misperceptions about the right pedal and what it can offer in the hands of accomplished pianists ad these appear to grow out of assumptions about misuse rather than appropriate use of that device, to the extent that you perceive its use to be inherently incompatible with clarity of presentation of contrapuntal line and synonymous with "muddying" textures of all kinds; this I simply do not understand.

If you have not already read it, you would do well to familiarise yourself with The Pianist's Guide to Pedaling, by Joseph Banowetz (Indiana University Press, 1992).

If he had indeed embraced the pedal as a tool, then he simply would have been forced to write differently (as all the others after him that embraced it), because it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep things clean with pedal, maintaining the old principles of consonance and dissonance.

I cannot agree; why and on what specific grounds would Bach necessarily have adopted such an attitude and, for that matter, who are you to assert dogmatically that Bach would have responded to such an instrument by deciding to write differently for it than he had done for those instruments with which He was familiar? Without being able to bring Bach back (oh, if only!), seat him in front of a Bösendorfer 290, Steinway D or any other modern concert grand and ask that He play any given number from his WTC, French or English Suites, Goldberg Variations et al, any ideas as to the conclusion that He'd have formed as a consequence can be no more than idle speculation!

Best,

Alistair

[dima_76557]

@ ahinton

Thank you for being patient with me. This is actually a very interesting topic, that's why I don't give up so easily. I'll try to give a very simple metaphor that I hope illustrates what the problem is.

If we see a musical motif of a string of notes in the music by Bach as a "string of pearls" (the tone ideal of that time described in the available literature), then, as soon as you put pedal on any of them (even if the pedal "falls" on one separate note in the string because we "need" pedal to lengthen another voice, then that one pearl where the pedal is used will be like a FAKE pearl in a string of real pearls that will be recognized as such by anybody who has zero tolerance for impure sounds.

I am VERY sensitive to that kind of qualities in sound, and this has nothing to do with whether I have sufficiently mastered the art of pedaling or not. On Debussy, for example, I can use plenty of pedal because he paints like Monet, Renoir, etc., and there it is often appropriate to color. In Bach, as I feel it, it is not, and none of the existing pedaling tricks does it for me as a solution. A motif already started should be played strictly homogenously throughout that motif, and without affecting any of the surrounding elements.

P.S.: I have the Banowetz already, but as you see, it doesn't seem to have helped me very much. Just kidding. I don't believe that anybody after Bach could ever change the way I listen to Bach himself. Every composer is a different world, and I prefer to keep it that way, and in strict conformity with what we can find in the sources of that time. I sincerely hope that your music will not be abused in 100-200 years, with an approach remote from the sound picture you had in mind when you created it.

[j_menz]

I sincerely hope that your music will not be abused in 100-200 years, with an approach remote from the sound picture you had in mind when you created it.

I would have thought any composer would have been thrilled to bits if any of there work were still thought to be so alive after 1-200 years that it could be so "abused". Otherwise, it's just a dustry old museum piece.

I note, too, that you are avoiding the transcription issue entirely. It will be illuminating, so go off and have a listen. Even better, have a play.

[anaqvi]

baroque means "broken pearl"
you have to be clear when playing bach.
Please check out invention 15. It's on the audition sections.
Thanks.

[go12_3]

Interesting inputs here about playing Bach on piano....  I have enjoyed playing Bach and each note needs to be played with a firm and separate touch.  It's a touch that doesn't imitate the harpsichord, it's a touch the requires to play the notes articulately. After figuring out the fingering and phrasing, then it's a delight to play Bach with finesse.  Each pianist has his/her interpretation of Bach, that's what makes music so personal and rewarding, no matter what piece that is being played.

[indianajo]

Well, I'm with Dima's opinion,  There are very few JS Bach pieces that I feel damper pedal would be appropriate.  I like the "ping" of my console Steinway and the string of pearls analogy for that music stikes my fancy.  Perhaps some of the slower and tonic chorales could use some pedal, but I haven't played any.  
In the "on beyond nineteenth century piano" department, JS Bach played in various rooms and since brick was common in that part of Germany, maybe some of them were pretty live, reverberent.  The piano damper pedal has a very long decay time and can smear note runs, but a little extra reverb in my carpeted and overstuffed music room could be attractive.  I've got a nice KSM27 microphone, and a digital effects box with 100 different reverbs and room ambients, and a great sound system straddling the organ that can sound very like a piano on good source material.  So I may do some experimenting with that some day.  
I've played some two part inventions on the organ, particularly the "glock" attack stop, which can be adjusted to sound much like a Rhodes electric "piano".  So that is much like playing a harpsichord, no volume control, the base sound has no sustain.  However there is a "harp" function which adds a half second sustain to the glock, and an actual spring reverb device with three levels, so playing with those controls on JSB inventions is a fun exercise.  

[j_menz]

baroque means "broken pearl"

Even when applied to architecture?