Bach performance practises (piano)

[doowlehc]

Bach performance practises (piano)

I am listening to Friedrich Gulda's playing of the well-tempered clavier, and Andras Schiff's.

Andras Schiff to me is much more expressive - more dynamic ranges, rubato, and he brings out diff voices at diff places
Friedrich Gulda to me sounds 'drier' - more like harpsichord - the voices are usually of same volume, much less dynamic ranges, little or no rubato.

I just want to ask - what is considered acceptable?  to narrow what I mean by acceptable, how about 'what is considered acceptable in a music competition?'

what other aspects you find different or interesting about various performances of bach on the piano?

[LVB op.57]

phrasing is a big issue. generally sixteenth notes are played legato and eighth notes are seperated. also, choice of tempo is really up to the performer, it's something you'll have to experiment with

[lostinidlewonder]

To put dynamics and tempo marks on Bach music is fine, but it is breaking tradition. Bach had no concept of the ability of a modern piano, but his music is written for every instrument and thus demands the musican to express it to whatever their instrument is capable of.

If you start adding notes, bring out particular voices over another you will be doing the music disfavour in my opinion. When playing Bach on the piano one should aim to maintain the voice of parts that are not naturally as easy to give voice to, rather than give bais to one over the other. When one start doing that the listener is forced to listen to what the pianist hears, and thus the other underlying melodies are lost or just become a support. This is to my understanding a modernised approach to Bach, where we have an underlying structure which a melody is played on top of. Bachs writing is much more than just that, it can be heard differently every time you listen to it especially his fugues. This attribute of his writing is definatly lost if you start giving bias to this or that.

Czerny marked the 48 Preludes and Fugues with expression marks that Beethoven played with, and one would say that that might have been the best way to express Bachs music on the piano, however the analogy is very much like someone taking a Shakespear play and start modernising it, changing words and acts to their liking (which has been done of course). It is fine but it takes away what traditionally was intended. It may be entertaining and interesting and breath new life into tradition, but it is again on a tangent to what was intially intended. It should be used in small amounts.

This is not to say that Bach has to be bland and played at one volume. There are natural rises and fall in the piece but no one should say that you have to ALWAYS increase here or decrease there. That is not the case, that is why Bachs WTC are so important for pianists, because it forces us to make decisions to the dynamics, tempo and phrasing, because it was never written for piano and cannot be written in one acceptable way, at the same time we have to understand the style of Bach's music and not try to approach it in a modernised way, but try to understand tradition. Glen Gould plays very traditionally, like a harpsichord or a clavichord touch, where Richter plays a lot more modernised in a "pianistic" way.

So anything is acceptable so long you adhere to the context of the peice. If you want to start mucking around with the piece and change things to your own liking you may infuriate judges at competitions. But most definatly you can play Bach two ways, traditionally as the harpsichord and the clavichord, or pianistically with "wider" dynamics and limited piano effects like the pedal. It is about balance, if someone takes a Bach peice and makes it as pianistic as they can possibly do, giving full authority to notes which they think should be brought out, over doing dymanics and tempo changes, you will never win in competition. But in a peformance you may win for sure!

[lagin]

Harpsichords did have different manuals or levels, meaning two or more keyboards sometimes.  Each keyboard or manual had a different dynamic range--mp, f, ect.  Not so much pp or really loud f back then.  So if you have terraced dynamics, one section mp, next section mf, it's keeping with the style.  Crescendos were not possible, but I personally use them, because if Bach could, I think he would have, too.  That's just me, though.

[galonia]

If you start adding notes, bring out particular voices over another you will be doing the music disfavour in my opinion.

I actually disagree - during the Baroque period, musicians are often expected to "fill in" long spaces with their own improvisations - so if you see a long note, you should ornament it, because you can be sure the sound of a harpsichord is not going to carry like a piano.  Also, if there is a chord, many musicians will arpeggiate it.

I know Bach started writing in a lot of the ornaments he wanted the performers to play, but he probably also expected the performers to add a bit themselves, too.

[IanT]

We should all be aware of what CPE Bach wrote concerning the ornamentation issue.

As far as dynamics and bringing out voices goes: I like to think of a vocal performance of the piece.  No vocal group would dream of singing at a constant volume all the way through just because there were no dynamic markings on the score - neither should we.

Obviously this music is contrapuntal and therefore the individual lines are of prime importance.  The vocal analogy really helps with this too.  You don't have to artificially bring out a particular line, but the natural phrasing and dynamic variation of a particular line may cause it to come out of the texture at some places during its execution.  Phrasing each line the way a singer would makes this music come alive in the most magical way.  Of course, it's also bloody difficult to do!

Ian

[Floristan]

Yes, vocal or string quartet.  Sometimes I imagine other instruments.  Bach was an organist, so I imagine he was often thinking in terms of the voices on his church organ.

I was in my university's concert choir, and we sang all the Bach motets, so it's natural for my ear to hear Bach sung.  Bach wrote so beautifully and expressively for both solo voice and choir.  It's hard to imagine he wouldn't take full advantage of the dynamic range a piano affords, had he had one.

[doowlehc]

Glen Gould plays very traditionally, like a harpsichord or a clavichord touch, where Richter plays a lot more modernised in a "pianistic" way.

I just listend to Gould playing fugue from book II number 9... E + - near the end of his life.

actaully he played it very lyrically - a bit of rubato... big change in dynamics - from p to F.

and he ritard in some major cadences. 

very 'emotional'./.. defintely not dry.

but this is very different than the recording i listend to him playing the Toccata - he was much younger and seems have that "like a harpsichord or a clavichord touch"