VIDEO: Invention No. 14 in B-flat Major BWV 785 by J.S. Bach

[michael_sayers]

From a performance on December 13, 2003, in Dallas, Texas.

[cbreemer]

Ok... as you appreciate candid opinions (as stated in the Prelude and Fugue thread) I'll give
you one.

I am absolutely horrified by how you trash this most exquisite and elegant of pieces into bloody
pulp. Let's not talk technique or interpretation, let's talk respect. It's ok to take Bach's music
out for a ride, it can stand that. But to pound it senseless with triple forte full pedaled octaves
is insufferable. Don't think for a moment that being a composer gives you some sort of right to
this.

Show some good taste and respect. Look at how lovingly Bach, himself the greatest of all
composers, treated the music of colleagues who, though good composers, hardly reached to
his ankles. There's a lesson in humility you would do well to acknowledge.

Sorry for the rant and the strong language. But I feel passionately, almost religiously, about Bach, as I know countless others do. Apparently not the applauding members of your public....

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Ok... as you appreciate candid opinions (as stated in the Prelude and Fugue thread) I'll give
you one.

I am absolutely horrified by how you trash this most exquisite and elegant of pieces into bloody pulp. Let's not talk technique or interpretation, let's talk respect. It's ok to take Bach's music
out for a ride, it can stand that. But to pound it senseless with triple forte full pedaled octaves is insufferable.

Perhaps oddly, it was the cheap arpeggio at the end which really did it for me. I can, at a push, see the purpose of quasi-organ textures, though I'd dispute their appropriateness. If there is supposed to be gravity and grandeur generated by the octaves, they were very much negated by the closing gesture.

[cbreemer]

I had not heard the end... could not stand it any longer and switched off around 1:30. Yes that
arpeggio seems the final coup de grace in case you thought the piece was not sufficient butchered already.

I can see the point of octaves in Busoni's transcriptions of some organ pieces, but there is
absolutely no place for them in this lovely Invention.

All in all it is beyond me why someone finds it necessary to post an aberration like this. Maybe to seek controversy only.

[michael_sayers]

Hi cbreemer,

Thanks for the very direct and well written post.  I share your high view of Bach's music, and also in the need for humility from performers - humility is one of the keys to playing beautifully, and without that inner state, it isn't going to happen.  Couldn't it be conjectural though to say humility is confined to a specific style of performance because other approaches don't resonate properly with one's own sensibilities about how the music should be heard?  A lot of persons would say that Liszt lacked humility, yet when one looks at his life and all the things he did for other persons and not only composers - including a willingness to let his work be published by struggling composers without it being under his own name - this seems to be inaccurate.  In my opinion error is risked in saying who does or doesn't possess humility without knowing much about the person and especially in the circumstance that sincere deeds with that as the source will tend as a result of their humble nature to be hidden and out of view.

[cbreemer]

I hand it to you that you are not easily offended

Indeed I am not to judge whether or not you are a "humble" person. And it's maybe not the point.
Let's talk respect again. If you share my high opinion of Bach and his music, why on earth must
you use fortissimo octaves, with the pedal pushed down, completely distort the rhythm in many places, and insert a ridiculous arpeggio at the end ? This may remain a rhetorical question,
because any of the following justifications will be considered invalid:

1) It is artistic freedom
2) I'm a composer so I am entitled to
3) It makes the piece more interesting
4) I just felt like doing it
5) My audience loved it so it must be ok
6) The value of a performance lies in it being radically different from everybody else's
7) It sounds better like this

So why do it ? It's not just disrespectful - you have all but raped this innocent little piece in a way that Liszt and Busoni would never have considered. Honestly, take this video off
YouTube. It does neither you of Bach any favours.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Playing devil's advocate here: 

8. The piano is a completely different instrument from in Bach's time, and he would have made similar changes to encompass the new developments.

[cbreemer]

Yes, I should have included that one too. What sins have been perpetrated under this pretext !

[j_menz]

Oh for heavens sake. Bach's genius, music and reputation has survived worse travesties and will survive this.

The simple fact is it doesn't work. On any level. It's appalling Bach, and it's appalling on it's own. And that is enough.

[cbreemer]

Allright... The Last Word has been said  

[stoat_king]

At the bit which has been described above as 'fortissimo octaves', it occurred to me that Mr Sayers was trying to break the piano.
If you wanted to destroy a piano using the music of Bach, perhaps this is what it would sound like.
I think the arpeggio at the end was a concession to the piano - it was obviously a more ferocious opponent than the pianist first thought.

Musically, I didnt much care for it much either, but it has brightened my day.
It certainly was a surprise lol

[cbreemer]

Indeed, both Bach and the piano are not so easily destroyed. But you have to admit, it was a good try 

[michael_sayers]

Hi cbreemer,

You are right that I don't feel offended easily.  If I were to let myself get worked up then I wouldn't be able to properly hear and try to understand what other persons are saying, so I am very adept at switching off negative emotion. To recap and show that I have heard you properly, your position in general is:

1) Every note, rest, and dynamic or other marking in a score was put there by the composer for a reason - all of it is important.

2) If a composer wanted rubato here, a tempo change there, a particular rhythm here, et c., it would have been indicated.

3) There are urtext editions which represent research into what the composer really wanted.  No edition is perfect, and there are variants in some instances, but any of these editions is 99.99% of the way there.

4) It is disrespectful toward the composer and also presumptive to deviate from the score.  There is some permitted range of individuality with performers but it also is possible to go too far with this.

Would you agree that this is more or less your general position?

[cbreemer]

Yes that is more or less my outlook in music. Whenever composers are very specific in their notation, I believe a performer has to adhere to that. Within these constraints a good musician
can put their own individuality, without violating the intentions and spirit of the composer. I think
that is the essence of true art, rather than just going with whatever fancy takes you. Bach himself worked within strict constraints and had no need for grand gestures and ostentatious point making. And yet he created the most lasting music.

But it's a difficult discussion, one that has raged in many forums. This is a topic that will always divide opinions very strongly.

The bottom line for me is that one should stay within the bounds of respect and good taste.
Although these bounds are poorly (if at all) defined, and very personal, I would say you were
way past them by any standard.

[johnlewisgrant]

I should spend more time here!   The performance/interpretation made me laugh, which may or may not be a good thing!

Anyhow, Barenboim is one example (no doubt there are others) of a pianist who takes quite a few liberties with J.S.  Certainly he throws in quite a few octaves where they absolutely were not intended!  Witness his WTC interpretation, both Books 1 and 2.   Yet, I confess to liking it very much (well with a few exceptions).   

The problem here, I think, is not the introduction of octaves., etc., etc..., which can "work", or at least work for me, under certain circumstances.  Rather, what is a little bothersome is the technique: there is "good" octave-playing and "poor" octave-playing.   Just as there is playing that is "even" and "uneven"; and pedaling that is "clear and unobtrusive" and pedaling that is messy to the extent that it's hard to hear what's going on.   

If you were to clean up the technique in the senses mentioned above, at the very least, then I guess I might (as a listener) be in a position to say what I think about the tempi and the octave-playing!

Music (like all art) in my view is something that from an epistemological standpoint is "in the mind" and there only.   In other words, I don't subscribe to the "objectivist" thesis: inter alia that there are "right" and "wrong" interpretations.   Rather, there are interpretations that are in "good" (generally accepted) taste; and there are interpretations that are in "poor" (not generally accepted) taste.

"Taste" is itself, of course, entirely subjective.  But it can be measured and tested, nonetheless.  More precisely, taste is "intersubjective": a perspective that is honed, developed over time, culturally relative, and subject to widely held views on what "works" and what doesn't.

Interpreters violate taste at their own peril, I suppose.  But it doesn't make what they do "wrong" or even "bad" in any objective or scientific sense.   That's just not what music's about for me.

[michael_sayers]

Yes that is more or less my outlook in music. Whenever composers are very specific in their notation, I believe a performer has to adhere to that. Within these constraints a good musician
can put their own individuality, without violating the intentions and spirit of the composer. I think
that is the essence of true art, rather than just going with whatever fancy takes you. Bach himself worked within strict constraints and had no need for grand gestures and ostentatious point making. And yet he created the most lasting music.

But it's a difficult discussion, one that has raged in many forums. This is a topic that will always divide opinions very strongly.

The bottom line for me is that one should stay within the bounds of respect and good taste.
Although these bounds are poorly (if at all) defined, and very personal, I would say you were
way past them by any standard.

Do you have an issue with such things as Dave Brubeck's Brandenburg Gate and Jacques Loussier's solo recording of the Chopin Nocturnes?  I'm not sure what the policy here is that relates to linking to these on Y.T., but one doesn't have to look very far to find them including the Brandenburg Gate recording with string orchestra.  

The problem here, I think, is not the introduction of octaves., etc., etc..., which can "work", or at least work for me, under certain circumstances.  Rather, what is a little bothersome is the technique: there is "good" octave-playing and "poor" octave-playing.   Just as there is playing that is "even" and "uneven"; and pedaling that is "clear and unobtrusive" and pedaling that is messy to the extent that it's hard to hear what's going on.  

If you were to clean up the technique in the senses mentioned above, at the very least, then I guess I might (as a listener) be in a position to say what I think about the tempi and the octave-playing!

Maybe there is a time for clean playing and a time when total commitment to notions of sound will exceed one's own limitations and the limitations of pianos to result in a messy outcome?

Interpreters violate taste at their own peril, I suppose.  But it doesnt' make what they do "wrong" or even "bad" in any objective or scientific sense.   That's just not what music's about for me.

I don't worry too much about the objections, just as if someone were to not like cbreemer's (very nice!) playing of Kapustin, it wouldn't effect his life too much.

And I no longer accept a fee for performing.  It is all for charitable causes going forward.  So it isn't as if my personal welfare would be adversely effected by controversy.  And the idea of changing one's playing or using music as a strategem for financial gain, but in a way that lacks inner commitment, seems ignoble.  I had a lot of golden opportunities when I was much younger than in 2003 and in good pianistic condition, including for concerto touring in Europe and also some specifically in Germany and offered to be organized by a representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, but I declined all of this since I knew the changes in playing style which would have been required.

And I withdrew from more than one institution as a student rather than face such things as receiving an "F" for a particular choice of tempo in a Beethoven sonata movement.

Sincerity is one of the primary principles: thoughts of "peril" don't have a place in it.

[michael_sayers]

In Norman Lebrecht's interview with Mahan Esfahani, at about the 2:30 mark, there is some exchange on the hypothetical of J.S. Bach composing for the piano which includes one work described as in truth having been composed for the fortepiano.

[brogers70]

It's not that I object to adding octaves when moving Bach to the piano. Lots of Busoni's arrangements are beautiful pieces that go pretty far from the original Bach version but still capture the spirit of the original. I just think the additions and modifications here don't feel like they fit the character of the little, relatively light-hearted invention. It's all a matter of taste, and people may well disagree on taste.

Modifications of Bach can work, but a tiny addition done in bad taste can ruin it. One specific example of that is in Czerny's version of the Bb major prelulde from WTC I. After the prelude evaporates into a quiet ascending Bb arpeggio, Czerny decided there was nothing better to do than to add an additional measure with a forte Bb octave in the bass, just in case the audience couldn't figure out that the piece had ended. Ugh.

[michael_sayers]

It's not that I object to adding octaves when moving Bach to the piano. Lots of Busoni's arrangements are beautiful pieces that go pretty far from the original Bach version but still capture the spirit of the original. I just think the additions and modifications here don't feel like they fit the character of the little, relatively light-hearted invention. It's all a matter of taste, and people may well disagree on taste.

Modifications of Bach can work, but a tiny addition done in bad taste can ruin it. One specific example of that is in Czerny's version of the Bb major prelulde from WTC I. After the prelude evaporates into a quiet ascending Bb arpeggio, Czerny decided there was nothing better to do than to add an additional measure with a forte Bb octave in the bass, just in case the audience couldn't figure out that the piece had ended. Ugh.

Hi Broger70,

Without any recordings of Bach's keyboard style maybe ascertaining the spirit of the original is a bit of a subjective process, and one that is partly influenced by recordings of the composition which date from the 20th century at the earliest?

My personal take on the piece is that it is robustamente, and of course harpsichords have pedals for doublings.  In addition, surely Bach would not have played a piano without showing any variation of dynamics.  While of course one can play the Invention No. 14 minimalistically and with delicacy - perhaps even fragility - that just is not my reception of its emotional content.

Thanks for giving it a listen!


Mvh,
Michael