Bach=Emotionless=BS

[Antnee]

While playing my Bach piece for my teacher, she, as she always does,  constantly points out that Bach should be played like a logical math problem. She says that Bach's music (especially the inventions, which is what I was playing) was intended to be played at one tempo throughout with little change in sonority and sound. She says that Bach isn't romantic and should be played mechanicaly! My teacher is a good teacher.  She has shown me the light in many of my pieces and constantly points me away from danger. But I feel tht I may need to ask up on this one... is she right? I feel that Bach was a emotional human like anyone else and that I should use the resources of the piano and explore more than my teacher wants me too What do you guys think?

[Brian Healey]

I for one would respectively disagree with your teacher. I think she has a point, in a way, because the instrument Bach wrote for is different in many ways than the one we play today. Playing Bach according to your teacher's instructions would be considered more authentic to the original sound. My tendency with Bach is to be more expressive. She's right about about the tempo, I think. If you use rubato, it should be very minimal. I don't know, your teacher isn't wrong at all, but keep in mind that there are many right answers. I would tend to agree more with what you said, but others might say otherwise.

[Daniel_piano]

Despite the instrument Bach played, he played his pieces like a romatinc, with lot of dynamic, interpretation and passion
Bach was not a boring or dull person and his music was not so too
Bach is played in a dull, mechanical and accademical manner and that's not the way he should be played, and is not the way he intended his music to be played

The only reason why the people now think that Bach should be played mechanically is because of his linking with accademical (hence boring in the collective imaginary) stuff instead of the reperpoitore
As a matter of fact piece like Inventions, Sinfonias,  English and French Suites, Preludes and Partitas are considered by theachers as "technical studies" instead of REPERTOIRE and this is a crime
Of course it's not your teacher fault, she has been brainwashed by her teacher that in turn has been brainwashed by her/his teacher and so on
The more bach stays in the accademical programmes the more it will be considered boring studies and not appasionated repertoire

Daniel


Daniel

[Daniel_piano]

By the way: tell your teacher to forget about inventions, partitas, sinfonias, suites and preludes and have a look at Bach organ works
There's so much change in sonoroty, so much ppp and so much ffff, so much use of dynamics and expression, so much pathos and passion than there's even more romanticism than romantic pieces

Daniel

[JK]

Of course Bach is not emotionless, as you said he was human like the rest of us and therefore would have experienced some extremes of human emotion as everyone does. He was also a religious man as well so there does tend to be some religious connections in a lot of his works. As for the instrument on which Bach was composing it seems to come back to the same old argument about whether to play Bach on a piano or not, and if you do, how do you play, do you try and imitate a harpisichord or not. In my opinion you should use as wider range of expression as is appropriate to the piece, you should certainly not play it expressionless. Bearing in mind that Bach transcribed a number of his own works for different arrangements of instruments, I would think that Bach would have played his works on a piano if a piano had been arround at the time. You shouldn't try and imitate a harpsichord as you are not playing one, you're playing a piano which has totally differently qualities to a baroque instrument. of course there is an appropriate level of expression/rubato/dynamic inflection that you should use and any expresison should be done for a reason with regard to the underlying harmony. Of course there are very succesful recordings by Gould who plays bach in a very mechanical way, but there is still a sense of line and direction which must always be present.

[Antnee]

Of course Bach is not emotionless, as you said he was human like the rest of us and therefore would have experienced some extremes of human emotion as everyone does. He was also a religious man as well so there does tend to be some religious connections in a lot of his works. As for the instrument on which Bach was composing it seems to come back to the same old argument about whether to play Bach on a piano or not, and if you do, how do you play, do you try and imitate a harpisichord or not. In my opinion you should use as wider range of expression as is appropriate to the piece, you should certainly not play it expressionless. Bearing in mind that Bach transcribed a number of his own works for different arrangements of instruments, I would think that Bach would have played his works on a piano if a piano had been arround at the time. You shouldn't try and imitate a harpsichord as you are not playing one, you're playing a piano which has totally differently qualities to a baroque instrument. of course there is an appropriate level of expression/rubato/dynamic inflection that you should use and any expresison should be done for a reason with regard to the underlying harmony. Of course there are very succesful recordings by Gould who plays bach in a very mechanical way, but there is still a sense of line and direction which must always be present.

Exactly. My teacher emphasizes that it should be played like it was on a harpsichord. It is in this respect I disagree.

[jazzyprof]

Exactly. My teacher emphasizes that it should be played like it was on a harpsichord. It is in this respect I disagree.

One of the great things about Bach's music is that it is so adaptable that it fits any instrument you play it on, as if it were written for that instrument.  You can play the Inventions and fugues on a synthesizer, as in "Switched-on Bach", and they will sound wonderful.  So I agree with you.  You don't have to play it on a piano as if it were a harpsichord.  The important thing is the articulation.  The tones must ring true without blurring.  And I disagree with the concept that Bach's music should be played mechanically.  Bach's music is rooted in song, dance, and worship, and you certainly can't dance or worship too well if totally devoid of emotion.

[glBelgedin]

Amen!

[Ed Thomas]

I suspect that the more common home instrument of Bach's time was the clavichord; not so much the harpsichord.  Much cheaper, more portable, and probably less annoying for playing at all hours in a small house.  You do have to stick your head practically inside of it to hear yourself playing if there is any background noise at all, but the dynamic range is still pretty wide.... all the way from pp to ppppppppppp you might say.      The clavichord allows you to do vibrato and portato... sort of massaging the string more directly for a very intimate sound.

So my suspicion is that people were playing baroque stuff with some freedom of dynamics and tempo for expressiveness, especially since there weren't any written constraints to the contrary.

[musicsdarkangel]

The beauty of Bach is that he has melodies and harmonies coming from nowhere.  This means that you need to bring those melodies out, and make good use of his counterpoint writing.  IMO it sounds corny when a pianist uses too much Rubato while playing Bach, because if you cadence with a fermata in the midst of all of the different harmonies, the other harmonies are going to sound chaotic.

When cadencing a melody, you use dynamics, not tempo.  There is too much going on in Bach to play rubato the whole way through.  It is rare that all of the parts cadence at once. 

I was in the same predicament as you last year before my undergrad auditions.  I hated Bach, and thought that he wrote mathematically.  I just needed to braoden my horizons, play more Bach, and listen to more Bach. 

Listen to different recordings and analyze them, follow your teacher's advice, but realize that you need to play the different parts separately, and analyze what should be forte, piano, etc.

This is why Bach is so hard; he often has so much going on at once.

[quasimodo]

Some people say that Bach didn't like that much the way his works were interpreted by musicians because they tended to abuse of ornamentation, nuances and stuff (which was a current practice at that time).

I think the key for a successful Bach interpretation is articulation and rhythm and, most of the time, this takes a lot of concentration because of the complexity, which probably allows little place to emotion unless you are a very high level concert pianist. To some extent, I agree with Antnee's teacher, at a learning stage, it's better to work Bach "mechanically". But if you intend to play it in recital, then you might have a deeper reflexion and analysis on the musical content and build your interpretation with more personal touch.

Bach's music for solo instruments has multiple purpose: learning, maintaining skills, reading, analysing the musical construction and performing. I guess the musician should adapt his play according to his personal goals.

[galonia]

I found my problem with learning Bach was that there was so much to concentrate on - getting the right notes, the right rhythm, coordinating my hands, and then the voicing!!!

There was no room for me to think about emotions or anything beyond just mechanically getting the things right.

Then one day, I listened real hard as I played, and realised that the piece was describing the grandeur of God's creations and the wonders of the world (Bach was a passionately religious man) - and that's when it struck me that all my struggles with the horrid technical stuff is all for that higher purpose, of conveying a passion about something.  Bach is most definitely passionate.  You just have to convey it tastefully.

[Daevren]

I agree with musicsdarkangel. To bring out the fugue subjects, the counterpoint etc you need to play it in a way you could call mechanically. And some people call that emotionless.

Of course anyone needs to play Bach the way they want, they recreate the music, they should do it the way they think is best.

But the 'mechanical' way just does it the most justice. I don't see how that can be unemotional myself.

[anda]

There's so much change in sonoroty, so much ppp and so much ffff, so much use of dynamics and expression, so much pathos and passion than there's even more romanticism than romantic pieces

Daniel

actually, based on the haphsichords and the clavecins i have played on, i'd say these instruments are way less expressive comparative to the modern day piano.

as for dynamics, there's nothing written in the urtext - all were written later by different editors.

[anda]

While playing my Bach piece for my teacher, she, as she always does,  constantly points out that Bach should be played like a logical math problem. She says that Bach's music (especially the inventions, which is what I was playing) was intended to be played at one tempo throughout with little change in sonority and sound. She says that Bach isn't romantic and should be played mechanicaly! My teacher is a good teacher.  She has shown me the light in many of my pieces and constantly points me away from danger. But I feel tht I may need to ask up on this one... is she right? I feel that Bach was a emotional human like anyone else and that I should use the resources of the piano and explore more than my teacher wants me too What do you guys think?

you say you play inventions - that means 2 or 3 voices. and the best way to get to differentiate the voices is by using different colors for each one. and how can you do that by playing mechanically? ask your teacher that.

[bravuraoctaves]

Bach is quite expressive. A lot of his works don't have phrase or expression marks because they are up to the performer, as in other baroque works.

[Floristan]

Bach wrote so expressively for voice and strings, that it's hard to believe that he would then want his keyboard works played mechanically.  Of course the amount of expression used depends on the piece.  Many pieces are primarily about the counterpoint, and so articulation is key, though it seems to me that subtle phrasing can help enunciate the counterpoint as well.  But in virtually every group of keyboard pieces Bach wrote, there are some that strain against the limitations of the baroque keyboards and seem to ask to be sung, or bowed, or played with expression on a modern piano.  I'm thinking for instance of Invention #9, where the two voices could so easily be a violin and a cello.  How can one not play a piece like this with feeling?

[chopinsetude]

I've got one thing to say regarding emotion:

Concerto in D Minor, BWV 1052, I. Allegro

One of my favorites due to the extreme emotional value!

[jacobspauly]

To me playing Bach like it was on a clavicord is like recording Rachmaninoff in basic mono or whatever because that was what the composer had when he lived. Why would you do it? No wonder so many people hate Bach. We live, breath, feel, and hear today, not yesterday, and all of our expressive art needs to adapt to this.

Paul

[hodi]

I've got one thing to say regarding emotion:

Concerto in D Minor, BWV 1052, I. Allegro

One of my favorites due to the extreme emotional value!

i once played this concerto and never finished it (i broke my hand, this prevented me from playing the piano for over 3 months)
it's extremly emotional and great concerto, it's underrated too!

[m1469]

Bach wrote music to burn fervently and breathe deeply within the breast.  His music holds captive the soul by voicing truth beyond measurable riches.

[anda]

I've got one thing to say regarding emotion:

Concerto in D Minor, BWV 1052, I. Allegro

One of my favorites due to the extreme emotional value!

how about the f-moll concerto, especially 2nd part? talk about extreme emotional value! or goldberg variations? or the art of fugue? or any sarabande in any french/english suite or in partitas? or toccatas (especially the e-moll), or so many of the preludes and fugues (take the b-moll or the es-moll for example, but so many others), or the inventions, or even some of the minuets in anna magdalena bach? i don't think he ever wrote anything to be played mechanically!

[faulty_damper]

While playing my Bach piece for my teacher, she, as she always does,  constantly points out that Bach should be played like a logical math problem. She says that Bach's music (especially the inventions, which is what I was playing) was intended to be played at one tempo throughout with little change in sonority and sound. She says that Bach isn't romantic and should be played mechanicaly! My teacher is a good teacher.  She has shown me the light in many of my pieces and constantly points me away from danger. But I feel tht I may need to ask up on this one... is she right? I feel that Bach was a emotional human like anyone else and that I should use the resources of the piano and explore more than my teacher wants me too What do you guys think?

Your teacher is completely wrong about Bach's strict tempi.  If anyone plays Bach's keyboard works in such a strict tempo, it will sound horrible.  Even adding dynamics to the different voices on a piano will not make it sound as it should.

Music incorporates two types of "drive" and your teacher is completely ignoring the application of one of them.
1)  music that is rhythmically driven and
2)  music that is melodically driven

She is ignoring the later.  Rhythmically driven music is very early music (primarily percussive).  But there are only so much rhythmic variations that can be created in understandable nature.  The development of a melody on top of these rhythm adds much more contrast.

In an invention, there are 2 or more lines, or melodies.  If these are played in a strict tempo, the melodies will be constrained to rhythmic drive thus turning the invention into an obvious percussive form of music, and in Bach's invention, there is no variation of rhythm.

What there are variations in are how the melodies interact with each other.  This is what an invention is.  If you only play inventions in strict tempi, you are in essence ignoring the melodies - they are just there to add color to the tempo.  But if you play them melodically, then the music will be lifted from its rhythmic constraints.

Try playing Chopin in strict tempi and you will be called "lifeless" or to quote you, "emotionless".  But why is Bach not said the same when played at strict tempo?  I do not know why but I suspect it may be due to ignorance and lack of understanding of what music is now.

Western music as it is now is very young.  It's less than 200 years old.  If you go back a 300 years, you have the early beginnings of the Baroque era.  400 years and you have very primitive music that is rhythmically driven.  Go back ten thousand years and humans were primarily beating drums or clapping out interesting rhythms.

With the development of a melody to add variety to rhythm, music suddenly became more interesting and sophisticated.  But early melodies were still restrained by rhythm.  Even a little more than 200 years ago, this was very true (the "classical" period, think of how Mozart often wrote short motives.)  But with the romantic period, suddenly the melody became much more focused and developed (think of Chopin's melodies).  With the development of this type of melody, the nature of Western music drastically changed.  Suddenly, music broke through the constraints of strict tempi and music became filled with "emotion".  This is just another advancement of music and one that has continued to be applied to all types of music played, even music written before this time. 

Think of how Mitsuko Uchida brings so much life into Mozart.
Think of how Rosalyn Tureck brings to[i/] life Bach!

If you compare the way Tureck plays the same pieces to other musicians who played Bach the way your teacher says he should be played, you will get startling comparisons.  In one case, it is very interesting and emotionally filled.  The other, it is a foot-tapper and "emotionless".

I very much suspect that those who say Bach should be played emotionlessly are completely ignorant of the musical advancement of the past 200 years.  Even if Bach did play in strict tempi, that is not how it should be played because we have far greater knowledge of music now.  And of course some would argue that if Bach played his own music in strict tempi, and his music isn't played that way now, they would say it's an incorrect interpretation - they just follow tradition.  And all of us should know now that tradition is often the greatest impediment of any kind of advancement or understanding.

Your brass friend,
Faulty Damper

[willcowskitz]

Western music as it is now is very young.  It's less than 200 years old.  If you go back a 300 years, you have the early beginnings of the Baroque era.  400 years and you have very primitive music that is rhythmically driven.  Go back ten thousand years and humans were primarily beating drums or clapping out interesting rhythms.

What do you mean by "as it is now"? All I can really think of is the system of equal temperament, but even that goes further than 200 years. If you mean what you call "melodically driven", I disagree about the age. Western music from the renaissance era, even medieval, was often very emotional and "firey" especially during the "birth of humanity" - renaissance - which is usually thought of having started in 14th century. Baroque follows from 16th, but is in music considered to be the 17th which is already 400 years back. Bach was child of the musical baroque era, so was his music primitive? 

What you're probably implying is that in "old music" maintaining strict tempo was thought to be excessively important in today's standards, because of the radical changes in music itself during the time that it has taken to evolve to what it is now, but I wouldn't go on making such statements about it's age or character. Also, the development of music has always had a lot to do with the current surroundings of the composers as in the structure and hierarchy of society, which is why most medieval music sounds careful and strict, reflecting the limited setting of artistic expression that it was composed in.

[Allan]

As an organist, to hear anyone suggest that Bach's music is to be approached like a math problem seems to me to be a woefully inadequate approach.  When I play the g minor fugue, I do in fact take a steady beat because there is a pulse and drive that can be attained.  But when I play the most expressive composer of all time, (like, for example a chorale prelude from Bach's, "Orgelbuchlein" which is the Well tempered Clavier for organists), I was taught, and I employ, expression, movement, use of the swell shades (which decreases and increases volume on the organ).  Bach is best!!
______________
"His [Bach's] mind is universal, his heart is overwhelming and his spirit is transcendental.  Should Bach's music be relegated to some musem display next to a dead queen's comb!? Not on your life!  Bach felt everything and has something to say to everyone.  Just open your pours and let him in!  Bach's music is at such a high level, other good or great music is to some degree derivative."   --Virgil Fox

[quasimodo]

I have this thought : if you play Bach's clavier music mechanically, it's going to sound like Bach, while if you play Chopin's or Rachmaninov's or Beethoven's mechanically, it will sound like sh*t.

Bach's music is so deep in itself that a lot of people are frightened about adding their personal emotions and touch, considering that the score suffice to itself.

Actually, being able to build a succesful personal interpretation of Bach's music may be the sign that you have become a real musician...

[Eusebius64]

Are any of you familiar with Wolfgang Rubsam's Bach recordings, especially those of the English and French Suites, and Partitas? Talk about emotion! The praeludium to the first Partita knocked me flat.

[Maui]

Pick up some Andras Schiff recordings and show him

[Musicag]

Or even further. Try to find S. Feinberg's 48 and put the CDs on for her and see how she responds to that.

[randolph]

Personally, I find Bach absolutely enthralling at an even tempo with a very big stipulation:  the interpreter must know what line in the counterpoint to bring out and exactly how to bring it out. 

I'm a noob to this forum and a semi-noob to piano performance, but I know exquisite music when I hear it.  There is no greater servant to Bach's music in the 20th century than Glenn Gould.  Each and every Bach movement he recorded for us was played evenly yet with such longing!  I daresay that he interpreted Bach pieces (such as Partita #6) more romantically at an even tempo than anyone I've heard interpreting a Romantic piece with all the Rubato they might care to lend to it.

Just an opinion, not a revolution.

[faulty_damper]

What do you mean by "as it is now"? All I can really think of is the system of equal temperament, but even that goes further than 200 years. If you mean what you call "melodically driven", I disagree about the age. Western music from the renaissance era, even medieval, was often very emotional and "firey" especially during the "birth of humanity" - renaissance - which is usually thought of having started in 14th century. Baroque follows from 16th, but is in music considered to be the 17th which is already 400 years back. Bach was child of the musical baroque era, so was his music primitive? 

What you're probably implying is that in "old music" maintaining strict tempo was thought to be excessively important in today's standards, because of the radical changes in music itself during the time that it has taken to evolve to what it is now, but I wouldn't go on making such statements about it's age or character. Also, the development of music has always had a lot to do with the current surroundings of the composers as in the structure and hierarchy of society, which is why most medieval music sounds careful and strict, reflecting the limited setting of artistic expression that it was composed in.

As it is now, I meant that since the Romantic period of music when the concept of tempo rubato was experimented with.  This concept is now very active in music regardless of when it was written.

By primitive, melodically driven music is often restricted to simple rhythm.  The rhythm in Bach's fugues is the simplist because the fugues are entirely melodically driven (to a certain degree).  This is what I meant when I said "primitive".  It is very difficult to create both primarily melodically driven music and complex rhythms that are pleasing to the ear.

To advance my thoughts, western music incorporates both drives but the melody is primarily dominant.  Aside from simple duple meter, there are more complex rhythms especially music composed for dances like that of the waltz and mazurka.  But even these are relatively simplistic because these dances are primarily melodically driven.

Compare western music to Ragtime or Jazz which is primarily rhythmically driven.  There are melodies but they are highly restrained by the rhythm which is often more complex.

Back to Bach.  I would like to compare two fugues because I would like to show that even though a fugue is created with melodies, some melodies restrict themselves to being primarily rhythmically driven and others propel themselves melodically.
1. Fugue in D-moll BWV948
2. Fugue in F-moll, Well'tempered Clavier Book II

The Fugue in D-moll is very difficult to leave behind its simple rhythm.  The reason has to do with its introduction and the remaining melody which is highly "jumpy" (taking large steps) which does not lend itself to being very melodic.  This melodic structure does not waiver from tempo because it cannot or lend itself badly to ones ear.

Comparatively, the Fugue in F-moll, even though the exposition begins rhythmically, takes off melodically with small steps.  This lends itself to "sing" and allows the lines to free themselves from the tempo slightly.  Also note that there is very significant potential for this fugue to contrast the melodic drive with rhythmic drive each time its opening lines begin again, which in my opinion is very effective musically (if interpreted correctly).

If my current understanding of the fugue is correct then an exposition that takes large steps lends itself to rhythmic drive and an exposition that takes small steps lends itself to being melodically driven.

fDsF

[willcowskitz]

My original point was that your timing of birth of western music was a bit off because baroque started earlier than you indicated and there did exist melodically stimulating music in renaissance and even medieval. Actually southern European renaissance era music is very similar to 1800's classical in it's rhythmical motion, probably because it's transmitting was often similar to folk music - by ear and touch, from father to son.

Your final conclusions of the correlation between melody and rhythm make (obvious) sense, even though I don't have those particular fugues at hand. Does your "melodically driven" include harmony, or is rhythm an equally important part of harmony. Personally I find a lot of Bach's music dull because of it's centralization around building the harmony without paying much attention to melodic details. In this kind of music, rhythm is an important factor - to keep it steady or punctuate different transitions of the melody.

[Skeptopotamus]

Sorry to say it, but I'm siding with the teacher.  If I had to chose one word to describe how you should play it, I would go with "efficiently".  If you ever go to a competition, the judges want to hear the classical and pre-classical movement music played like a robot.  So you might as well get in the habit now.

[beethovenfan]

Another question:

Do you use the sustain pedal when you play Bach.
My teacher told me, not to use it, but I think, sometimes it is needed for example in WTK Prelude I (C - Major) or E - Major.

Ps.

I think it's very difficult and nearly unpossible to play emotionless.

[anda]

If you ever go to a competition, the judges want to hear the classical and pre-classical movement music played like a robot. 

not true! at least for most of the european piano competitions.

[anda]

Another question:

Do you use the sustain pedal when you play Bach.
My teacher told me, not to use it, but I think, sometimes it is needed for example in WTK Prelude I (C - Major) or E - Major.

Ps.

I think it's very difficult and nearly unpossible to play emotionless.

i use. depends on what work you're playing - you can't say "bach should be played like this", we should be discussing how this or that work by bach should be played, not trying to generalize. i mean, you don't say "should i be playing rachmaninov fast or slow"

ask your teacher to play a sarabande/a 2nd part from any concerto without using the sustain pedal.

[beethovenfan]

Ok I'll do.   

[maestroanth]

While playing my Bach piece for my teacher, she, as she always does,  constantly points out that Bach should be played like a logical math problem. She says that Bach's music (especially the inventions, which is what I was playing) was intended to be played at one tempo throughout with little change in sonority and sound. She says that Bach isn't romantic and should be played mechanicaly! My teacher is a good teacher.  She has shown me the light in many of my pieces and constantly points me away from danger. But I feel tht I may need to ask up on this one... is she right? I feel that Bach was a emotional human like anyone else and that I should use the resources of the piano and explore more than my teacher wants me too What do you guys think?

I just wanted to give my 2 cents on this even though this topic is dated.....

This old fashioned, hackneyed academic view of Bach playing is why so many people (like normal people that never went through music in college) don't like Bach.  Trust me, IMO, if Bach had a different instrument other than a 'harpsichord/clavicord/organ', teacher's would be saying, "oh, add a little rubato here, or a phrasing crescendo" instead.  Unless you really are playing on an organ, I find no aesthetic reason to play it super mechanically.

I actually made a Bach/Busoni video (a super hard version of the famous Bach/Busoni toccata and fugue in d minor...at least the fugue anyway) where I just said 'F$^% it' and added all sorts of dynamic and phrase interpretations (and even video splash effects, lol) which I think add a whole neat light to it.  So far, the main criticism I got was, "you've gone too far if you break the constant sound that's like an organ", which is a BS reason IMO since that criticism has nothing to do with aesthetics.  I hate when people say these types of things, because they let their academics shape their musical taste where in my opinion musical taste should be something pure and innate. Otherwise, you jeopardize your creative integrity as a musician....  Even with that criticism, it's why I picked the fricken BUSONI arrangement where the notes are so insane that it can look like a Liszt piece. I mean the video itself took a lot of work to make it professional like I imagined coupled with the intense piano playing.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in MY interpretation of the famous Bach fugue in D Minor, here's the site, and the video is under the "videos tab"....

I think everyone should start playing Bach like this ,

www.maestroanth.com


All Best People!

[mjames]

I sorta agree with you. Why should we treat the piano as a harpsichord? Play the piano like you should be playing the piano, because it's a *** piano not an organ or a harpsichord!

[maestroanth]

I sorta agree with you. Why should we treat the piano as a harpsichord? Play the piano like you should be playing the piano, because it's a *** piano not an organ or a harpsichord!

I know!!!! right? haha 

[mjames]

damn purists.


OMG, is that pedal on Mozart??


YEAH, THATS RIGHT.

PEDAL PEDAL PEDAL

[carl_h]

damn purists.


OMG, is that pedal on Mozart??


YEAH, THATS RIGHT.

PEDAL PEDAL PEDAL

Yeah, I bet they like to listen to MIDI-files all day long! 

[swagmaster420x]

bach was a math person....

[carl_h]

bach was a math person....

Meaning?

[nyiregyhazi]

I actually made a Bach/Busoni video (a super hard version of the famous Bach/Busoni toccata and fugue in d minor...at least the fugue anyway) where I just said 'F$^% it' and added all sorts of dynamic and phrase interpretations (and even video splash effects, lol) which I think add a whole neat light to it.  So far, the main criticism I got was, "you've gone too far if you break the constant sound that's like an organ", which is a BS reason IMO since that criticism has nothing to do with aesthetics.  

ahem. It has EVERYTHING to do with aesthetics.

I hate when people say these types of things, because they let their academics shape their musical taste where in my opinion musical taste should be something pure and innate. Otherwise, you jeopardize your creative integrity as a musician....  Even with that criticism, it's why I picked the fricken BUSONI arrangement where the notes are so insane that it can look like a Liszt piece. I mean the video itself took a lot of work to make it professional like I imagined coupled with the intense piano playing.

If I let academics shape my taste, I wouldn't count Nyiregyhazi as one of my favourite pianists. Look at his biography and listen to how he plays. My criticism was levelled against the fact that a fugue consists of VOICES. Your performance hides significant notes within voices, to the detriment of the voices and to the detriment of the counterpoint that Bach is founded on. This is especially ironic, given how you framed the video, with explanation of the subject to the viewer. Key notes become inaudible within the subject with regularity- compromising the very concept of your video. How can a subject speak to first time listener if the notes that it consists of don't speak to the ear?

If you listen to Horowitz play Bach/Busoni, or such artists as Cortot and Richter in Franck, you'll hear just how much colour can be achieved while retaining an organ like sound in which voices maintain continuity and musical distinction- which is an aeshetic prerequisite for such repertoire, in my opinion. All manner of shadings can be achieved without losing the integrity of musical lines within the contrapuntal texture. The hallmark of an organ-like sound is not monotony but maintaining an audibility that carries through lines- even when plenty of dynamic shaping is included.  

If you disagree then you are welcome to play as your convictions take you. But if you want to reject criticism then reject it on the level it was made- not by creating a misrepresentation of it to reject.

PS. I make very little distinction between the approach to Bach transcriptions and "straight Bach". When you hear how much colour and variety Fischer is able to inject within this fugue, without relegating any notes to a role of mere filler, it gives a strong indication of quite how unnecessary it it to compromise the integrity of counterpoint for the sake of colour.

Just listen to the wonderfully exaggerated diminuendo in the closing bars. Could an organ do that? No. But does he compromise the integrity or clarity of a single voice? No- which is why it's still in the same world as the sound of the organ, even if strictly impossible on the organ. It's simply not necessary to compromise the counterpoint, when that much colour is available already. Colour to your heart's content, if you can maintain the sense of voices. But the moment that you colour by hiding notes vaguely behind others in very same voice, in washes of sound that cloak the motif, you have lost touch with the musical style. Clarity and colour are not mutually exclusive.

[maestroanth]

Yeah, I bet they like to listen to MIDI-files all day long! 

I lol'ed 

[maestroanth]

Meaning?

2+2 =4.

Oh, what if I say 2 + 2 = 5? Didn't that just blow your mind ;p

[maestroanth]

ahem. It has EVERYTHING to do with aesthetics.

If I let academics shape my taste, I wouldn't count Nyiregyhazi as one of my favourite pianists. Look at his biography and listen to how he plays. My criticism was levelled against the fact that a fugue consists of VOICES. Your performance hides significant notes within voices, to the detriment of the voices and to the detriment of the counterpoint that Bach is founded on. This is especially ironic, given how you framed the video, with explanation of the subject to the viewer. Key notes become inaudible within the subject with regularity- compromising the very concept of your video. How can a subject speak to first time listener if the notes that it consists of don't speak to the ear?

To be honest, this seems a bit over-exaggerated because I hear the subject just fine....there maybe a speaker difference?  I do take your point on how *this* performance hides the pedal tone aspect of the subject, but honestly, in my opinion, it's just that, simply a pedal tone. The intervals not involving the pedal tone are of much more melodic importance to me than the intervals between each note and the pedal tone that precedes/follows it...I can see on how on an organ that this is more critical (the melodic notes vs. each pedal tone having to be handled distinctly), but on a piano you do have the option of putting pedal tones and ostinatos in general in the background for a sense of layering....a difference in taste perhaps?  

[nyiregyhazi]

To be honest, this seems a bit over-exaggerated because I hear the subject just fine....

You know the piece. Consider a listener who doesn't.

there maybe a speaker difference?  I do take your point on how *this* performance hides the pedal tone aspect of the subject, but honestly, in my opinion, it's just that, simply a pedal tone.

It's an integral aspect. If treated as filler, the driving semiquaver rhythm turns into slow quavers. And a load of interesting intervals of increasing sizes vanish, leaving something that merely moves almost entirely by step.

The intervals not involving the pedal tone are of much more melodic importance to me than the intervals between each note and the pedal tone that precedes/follows it...

Herein is the problem. You take no interest in them and they are thus lost. The romantic generation of Bach players didn't have to abandon those varied intervals in order to give some attention to the implied quaver line. They succeeded with both. You're only looking at one issue, where it's possible to see things both ways and achieve both. I like many of your ideas, but the moment you start bringing out one thing by abandoning another, you lose the essence of the counterpoint, the full motific value of the subject and the prevailing semiquaver rhythm.

but on a piano you do have the option of putting pedal tones and ostinatos in general in the background for a sense of layering....

You also have the option of using dynamic differentiation, without making notes of the subject so quiet as to become nothing but mere filler. Listen to various recording of the Bach/Liszt fugues and you'll hear that none of the romantic generation play these configurations without keeping the repeated notes melodic. They simply don't need to relegate notes of a motif to a completely empty role, in order to be able to bring out implicit quavers lines.

Here's Grainger:

It's infinitely more interesting when you can also hear the variety of intervals between the implied quaver line and the inverted pedal note that it alternates against.

[cuberdrift]

I've never quite really preferred Bach over the Romantics, or even the Classical composers. To me his music usually sounds too "abstract", as if it were mere ornamentation, or a mere "trying-to-prove-what-can-be-done-about-the-science-of-music" sort of thing. Please prove me wrong.

However, playing Bach gives me some kind of intense joy...I believe it is because of how he plays around with the melody, harmony, etc. and with all the glittery bass lines/arpeggios to emphasize them.