Bach=Emotionless=BS

[002517]

Bach's works shouldn't be thought of or played as emotionless or mechanical. They should be played in its Baroque style, hallmarked by Bach's ingenuity and mastery: sophisticated, intricate, and intelligent. And if that comes across as emotionless or mechanical, then it is only because of the audience's lack of appreciation.

[michael_c]

Bach loved playing on the clavichord, and instrument that allows for great expressiveness. Indeed, on a clavichord you have expressive possibilities that don't exist on the modern piano (subtly changing the pitch of a note or using vibrato). The problem with the clavichord it its limited dynamic range: it's too soft for concerts or for playing with other instruments.

A pianist internationally renowned for playing Bach on a modern piano is Angela Hewitt. Listen to her playing and what she has to say about playing Bach on the piano:

[dumkagal]

I haven't had a chance yet to read everyone's comments, but I will--BUT I just have to jump in and say that Bach's music is always extremely passioniate and open to wide variations in interpretation...the clavichord, I guess, just wasn't able to deliver the goods. But strong, lyrical dynamics are indelibly written into the music--in the melodic lines, harmonics, everything. Poor ole Bach--if he could just get a crack at a good Steinway or Bosendorfer he'd probably die all over again of joy. (The mechanical interpretations, like Glenn Glould's, can be instructive--but often Gould leaves me cold.)

[maestroanth]

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

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.


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.

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.

Well, a lot of my colleagues who do know this piece didn't really notice the loss of the pedal tone A sound until I mentioned it to them and they were like "Oh ya. *shrug*", and didn't really seem to care much beyond that.  The reverb actually bothered some of them more as the #1 thing (I was a little heavy on that setting because I wanted it to feel like a concert hall vs. my little apartment).

On one hand, I do give you kudos for such acuity in noticing this minor flaw which others (including myself I might add) overlooked, but on the other hand, it does seem to distract you from honestly the point of the video (and the foremost point ISN'T a teaching video, it's just a little extra thing I through in there).  Your criticisms in a way remind me of this show called "Monk" where an obsessive compulsive detective goes crazy whenever he notices a little flaw in something. And this completely ruins experiences for him that otherwise other people would find pleasure in, and to him, the only type of art he enjoys is that of a "perfect square", or "perfectly laid out dots" and so forth.

Relating this to the OP topic, should Bach performances be valued on a similar pretentious level of being played as a "perfect square"?  Like it has been done for decades with robotic metronome beats and flat lined dynamics imitating a harpsichord or organ?  I don't believe so. Because then it becomes a matter of what is the point of playing in a matter that's been done for centuries? This is what I wanted to break in my video and why I picked the Busoni version although it can cause disruptive criticism in the ears of some Bach lovers.

As far as your comment of having the pedal tone A adding interesting intervals to the subject....I have to respectively disagree.  They simply make the subject more static. And to me the concept of interesting counterpoint got disrupted as soon as Bach decided to write all those pedal tone A's in there. I also feel the same way as with the arpeggio ostinatos that appear sporadically throughout the piece in some of the episodes (yes, I'm criticizing Bach, how dare me).  Intellectually, if you are mainly after interesting intervals, hell, bigger experimental shifts in modality or chromaticism would have been more apt choices.  However, aesthetically, the ostinatos do give a nice relaxation or break from the busy counterpoint at carefully placed times where they are needed, and the pedal tone A's do serve as a nice little 'anchor' for the ear to latch on to in order to not get lost. - which I think was the composer's true incentive....rather than innovative discoveries in complex counterpoint.

Keep in mind, I try to formulate my opinions and observations in a free objective manner that at times directly oppose the heritage and traditions that academia instills in young musicians. In any case, this conversation and has made me think about things in different ways!

[maestroanth]

Oh, and if anyone wanted to see the video we are talking about; here is a link to the video I made over the summer (It's the famous Bach/Busoni fugue in D-minor):

https://www.maestroanth.com/videos.html

My next videos will be an ad of a philosophical video game I'm making to hopefully get some developers interested in, and an arrangement of phantom of the opera I wrote O.o.

[anamnesis]

I think it's a bit arrogant just to dismiss N.'s perfectly fair criticism. 

It's a common device, although probably more prevalent in Scarlatti. Kirkpatrick describes them:

“One of Scarlatti’s favourite melodic devices, even dearer to him than to his contemporaries, is the progressive expansion of intervals which makes one voice suddenly split in two. Generally one half remains stationary while the other half moves away from it like a dancer measuring off the space of a stage against the stationary spinning of his partner in the middle. This perpetual splitting off of one or two voices into the outlining of other voices produces a frequent confusion of identity. The voices are continually transforming themselves, as if in a dream. They desert their own planes to outline other planes, to hint, as it were, at the existence of other personages, to indicate depth as well as outline of space, in a continually shifting perspective in which these imaginary personages are unpredicatably appearing and disappearing.”

[garrickthegreat]

Oh, and if anyone wanted to see the video we are talking about; here is a link to the video I made over the summer (It's the famous Bach/Busoni fugue in D-minor):

https://www.maestroanth.com/videos.html

Hey, I'm new here and this was a pretty good video. Difficult piece! It did take me a couple of hearings to find out what the discussion here was all about though. Irregardless, considering the amount of work that went into the video editing and clear sound, I say you made this look quite professional with a sound performance! I really liked how you took a serious classical piece and gave it a kinda funky fun house environment.

Anyway, I am actually a bit curious about your perfect pitch book.  How much is it?  Have you had any success with teaching perfect pitch?

[garrickthegreat]

Hey, I'm new here and this was a pretty good video. Difficult piece! It did take me a couple of hearings to find out what the discussion here was all about though. Irregardless, considering the amount of work that went into the video editing and clear sound, I say you made this look quite professional with a sound performance!  I really liked how you took a serious classical piece and gave it a kinda funky fun house environment.

Anyway, I am actually a bit curious about your perfect pitch book.  How much is it?  Have you had any success with teaching perfect pitch?

[maestroanth]

I think it's a bit arrogant just to dismiss N.'s perfectly fair criticism.  

Well, I don't view it just as a dismissal because I'm actually quite impressed he noticed not being able to hear the pedal tone in that one section.  I'm just saying it's quite small potatoes compared to the bigger picture.  I.e. clear recording, nice editing, as well as sound playing (there aren't any mistruck notes!), etc., - I've actually learned these bits of professionalism from an old colleague who wasn't the best instrumentalist, but by god, I secretly respected him the most because he knew how to do these things.  The general public did too

It's a common device, although probably more prevalent in Scarlatti. Kirkpatrick describes them:

“One of Scarlatti’s favourite melodic devices, even dearer to him than to his contemporaries, is the progressive expansion of intervals which makes one voice suddenly split in two. Generally one half remains stationary while the other half moves away from it like a dancer measuring off the space of a stage against the stationary spinning of his partner in the middle. This perpetual splitting off of one or two voices into the outlining of other voices produces a frequent confusion of identity. The voices are continually transforming themselves, as if in a dream. They desert their own planes to outline other planes, to hint, as it were, at the existence of other personages, to indicate depth as well as outline of space, in a continually shifting perspective in which these imaginary personages are unpredicatably appearing and disappearing.”

The Bach subject doesn't split off into two, it just sits there in a voice above or below (only Busoni's doublings later on makes it more interesting).  Plus, this isn't what I like about musicians in general, is that this Scarlatti statement even though eloquently written, is all rhetoric.  It's overly subjective and over-romantacising of what it simply is, a pedal tone. It's almost validating an overly simplistic musical tool which I remember finding much of Scarlatti's music as.  If you pull a rather high level Schenker analysis on the bach subject (just like a mini-step reduction), you'll see the pedal tone reduced down to a elongated whole note rather quickly with the d-minor in eighths or quarter's depending on which beat you choose to reduce.

[outin]

It's almost validating overly simplistic musical tool which I remember finding much of Scarlatti's music as.

It is exactly the ability to create such beauty and variety with rather "simple" means that is one of the things that makes him so special and admirable among composers. So nothing "overly" about that IMO.

[maestroanth]

It is exactly the ability to create such beauty and variety with rather "simple" means that is one of the things that makes him so special and admirable among composers. So nothing "overly" about that IMO.

Just difference in opinion, nothing more. I'm just not all that attracted to it. Simple to me = boring no matter how one sugarcoats it.

[j_menz]

The Bach subject doesn't split off into two, it just sits there in a voice above or below (only Busoni's doublings later on makes it more interesting).  

Busoni's doublings are there to simulate the organ, for which this piece was originally written. You can hardly blame Bach if it sounds a bit thin on a piano.

[maestroanth]

Busoni's doublings are there to simulate the organ, for which this piece was originally written. You can hardly blame Bach if it sounds a bit thin on a piano.

Yup, Bach's a musical nub ;P

[anamnesis]

Well, I don't view it just as a dismissal because I'm actually quite impressed he noticed not being able to hear the pedal tone in that one section.  I'm just saying it's quite small potatoes compared to the bigger picture.  I.e. clear recording, nice editing, as well as sound playing (there aren't any mistruck notes!), etc., - I've actually learned these bits of professionalism from an old colleague who wasn't the best instrumentalist, but by god, I secretly respected him the most because he knew how to do these things.  The general public did too

Of course those aspects are nice for a video recording.  That doesn't mean musical points, minor as they might be to you, don't have merit discussing.  (BTW, I did enjoy your recording.) There's no reason to take offense if someone finds some slight detail they think you could improve on.  

The Bach subject doesn't split off into two, it just sits there in a voice above or below (only Busoni's doublings later on makes it more interesting).

Plus, this isn't what I like about musicians in general, is that this Scarlatti statement even though eloquently written, is all rhetoric.  It's overly subjective and over-romantacising of what it simply is, a pedal tone. It's almost validating an overly simplistic musical tool which I remember finding much of Scarlatti's music as.  If you pull a rather high level Schenker analysis on the bach subject (just like a mini-step reduction), you'll see the pedal tone reduced down to a elongated whole note rather quickly with the d-minor in eighths or quarter's depending on which beat you choose to reduce.

I think you are compounding [simplicity versus interest] with importance/structural coherence.  
They don't correlate at all (There is actually a natural opposition between the two.), the art of music is the appropriate balance between both.  There's a certain level of simplicity needed to make music more comprehensible to a listener, but it also needs to be complex enough to maintain interest.  This problem underlies the very essence of music at all levels.   [And yes, the implication here is that the aural sophistication of the listener does indeed have a role.]

It's a simple device, but the pedal tone provides an important structural line that clarifies the underlying tonal structure of the piece.  

Reduction doesn't mean elimination just because it further recedes into the background.

And I think you might slightly be missing the point of Schenkerian notation if you think that means having a longer note  dismisses the role of that "pedal note". By virtue of having, a longer note value, it has more structural weight.  It's more important to the underlying tonal structure that ties everything together, and has more conceptual priority. It becomes a tonal reference point for the other pitches.  

The composer already did part of the work for you by rearticulating it in the music.  Repetition is an operation that confirms conceptual priority.  It's your job to figure out the right balance, and you can argue the degree to which it should be heard.  

You want to clarify the actual, interesting moving line that provides interest; however, you don't do it at the expense of eliminating a background structure completely.  It needs to be a continuous drone in the background. Subtle, but there.    

TLDR

It's not as interesting to the listener, but it's more structurally important and provides tonal context for everything else.  
Balancing it appropriately is not the same thing as eliminating it completely so that it's not audible on a recording at all.  

[anamnesis]

--DOUBLE POST--

[maestroanth]

Of course those aspects are nice for a video recording.  That doesn't mean musical points, minor as they might be to you, don't have merit discussing.  (BTW, I did enjoy your recording.) There's no reason to take offense if someone finds some slight detail they think you could improve on.  

Oh yea, I do admit I feel a bit immature about that :/ 

I do appreciate the time you took to watch the video!  Getting people to view your work is like trying to get kids to eat broccoli (heck, I rarely click on peoples' links myself), so when they do take the time, I do appreciate it.

I really don't know why I get overly sensitive. Thank god I don't drink alcohol anymore or I'd really look like as a$$ on these forums, lol.

On one hand, it's good because it shows I care, but on the other, I need to realize the humanity of it all that no one is perfect and accept certain flaws.  And sometimes, there is an intrinsic beauty in those flaws. I just remember thinking with the video, "I'm going to go for perfection!", and then someone catches something, and I'm like, "Awww....crap!", and it's too late for any redo.

I think you are compounding [simplicity versus interest] with importance/structural coherence.  
They don't correlate at all (There is actually a natural opposition between the two.), the art of music is the appropriate balance between both.

I actually believe simplicity vs. interest do correlate a lot because as soon as something repeats, it slowly becomes mundane.  However, I do believe in the balance between unity and variety thing.

There's a certain level of simplicity needed to make music more comprehensible to a listener, but it also needs to be complex enough to maintain interest.  This problem underlies the very essence of music at all levels.   [And yes, the implication here is that the aural sophistication of the listener does indeed have a role.]

I totally concur! It rides in tide with the unity and variety thing I mentioned. I enjoyed reading your post!

[anamnesis]

I actually believe simplicity vs. interest do correlate a lot because as soon as something repeats, it slowly becomes mundane.  However, I do believe in the balance between unity and variety thing.

I totally concur! It rides in tide with the unity and variety thing I mentioned. I enjoyed reading your post!

I think we actually do agree on that point.  What I really meant is that simplicity/coherence has a negative correlation with interest. I phrased it wrong in my previous post. And there must be a balance on all fronts (performer, listener, composer), depending on the aural sophistication of the listener. 

Since you are familiar with Schenker, you might be interested in reading Westergaard's Tonal Theory.  His work is essentially based on this concept of structural simplicity/coherence versus structural ambiguity/interest, and how this influences how a listener comprehends a piece of music as it unfolds in time.

He combines Schenkerian pitch operations with operations on rhythm/time into a theory of Tonal Rhythm that allows you to account for the function of every note and the "weight" of that function.  

These are ideas that are implicit in Schenker, but Westergaard turns it into an explicit, metalanguage.   Because of that, it allows one to intelligently discuss issues on performance with a clear language that refers to structure of the music. In fact he devotes an entire chapter doing so.  (Can you name any other "undergraduate" theory book that devotes an entire chapter to how one can use theoretical language to explain how musical structure influences what good performers do intuitively?)

I've attached the last 3 chapters of his book.  

[maestroanth]

I think we actually do agree on that point.  What I really meant is that simplicity/coherence has a negative correlation with interest. I phrased it wrong in my previous post.

Since you are familiar with Schenker, you might be interested in reading Westergaard's Tonal Theory.  His work is essentially based on this concept of structural simplicity/coherence versus structural ambiguity/interest, and how this influences how a listener comprehends a piece of music as it unfolds in time.

He combines Schenkerian pitch operations with operations on rhythm/time into a theory of Tonal Rhythm that allows you to account for the function of every note and the "weight" of that function.  

These are ideas that are implicit in Schenker, but Westergaard turns it into an explicit, metalanguage.   Because of that, it allows one to intelligently discuss issues on performance with a clear language that refers to structure of the music. In fact he devotes an entire chapter doing so.  (Can you name any other "undergraduate" theory book that devotes an entire chapter to how one can use theoretical language to explain how musical structure influences what good performers do intuitively?)

I've attached the last 3 chapters of his book.  

Oooo... fricken awesome man. Thanks for attaching it! I'm going to read it today.

[cuberdrift]

You know, I honestly love playing Bach, but for some reason don't enjoy listening to him as much. I, of course, really like some of his compositions, but overall I don't really understand most of his work. Perhaps I am exaggerating here, however.

But seriously - WHAT is the emotion in his work? I am doubting myself at the same time since I enjoy playing his pieces, sometimes even more so than any other composer. But...when I listen to Gould, or his Brandeburg concerto, I just don't feel much.

That's just my take.