The Well Tempered Clavier. My conclusions after browsing Amazon samples.
jonas
tempered Clavier.
I went to Amazon to listen to different versions and came to some
conclusions.
As many of you suggested, Edwin Fischer愀 recording was "romantic" in the
sense I believe Casals meant when he said that Mozart should be played as
Chopin and chopin schould be played like Mozart.(I go one step further and
thinks it could be applied to Bach as well). With romantic I mean emotional
without sentimentality and in Bach愀 case also with beauty and religious
mystery. When browsing amazon I found many standard performances that didn愒
deviate much from one another. One thing that struck me was the overall
difficulty in producing a singing tone. There was just too much hammering
for my taste. Another thing I thought of was that the different voices in
the Fugues were often to marked, as to show the listener that "I"( the
performer) am able to follow all the voices, instead of taking a delicate
care of all the melodic lines. Some, like Andras Schiff for instance, tried
to play with a more delicate and "singing" approach. I, however, often found
their approaches boring and predictable instead. Among the performances that
stood out was Edwin Fischer愀, who both had a singing tone and was exciting,
and of course Glenn Gould愀.
I think I most liked Edwin Fischers performance. Sometimes I found his
changes in tempi and touch too exagerated though. Gould, needless to say,
played in a completely different manner. He leads the hammering group of
performers. I, however, liked him much more compared to the other
"hammerers" because of his mercurial energy and excentricity. I would need
to be in a Gould mood though to to be able to listen to him for a longer
stretch. To sum it up I would probably enjoy Fischer the most and when in
the mood for it I would listen to Gould. I would even consider listening to
the boring "singing tone" performances as background music.
I am eagerly awaiting your comments.
Jonas
Ramon Khalona
jonas wrote:
Get Feinberg on Russian disc.
RK
LaVirtuosa
that I keep examining his WTC recordings and finding more and more fascinating
little touches in there. It's like redecorating in Pottery Barn, or Shaker.
It's great fun. I already mentioned the beauty of Fischer's, and wish I could
locate Feinberg's for comparison. However, but going back to Landowska is like
going back to church. ********Valerie
Steve Emerson
>
> To sum it up I would probably enjoy Fischer the most and when in
> the mood for it I would listen to Gould. I would even consider listening to
> the boring "singing tone" performances as background music.
>
> I am eagerly awaiting your comments.
Comments: 1. Don't go by downloaded, poor-sound-quality 60-second
samples. Very very misleading. 2. Fischer is fine. 3. Feinberg, the
near-universal recommendation, should be available through Tower.com and
elsewhere -- see his "Russian Piano School - Bach" on Russian Compact
Disc.
SE.
mt
<<Comments: 1. Don't go by downloaded, poor-sound-quality 60-second
samples. Very very misleading. 2. Fischer is fine. 3. Feinberg, the
near-universal recommendation, should be available through Tower.com and
elsewhere -- see his "Russian Piano School - Bach" on Russian Compact
Disc.>>
Yes, that's the right order: Feinberg first, Fischer second; all other
sets on the piano come after these too. Horszowski's Book I is also
highly recommendable, but unfortunately there is no Book II. Richter's
is an impressionistic view of the set (he was playing a lot of Debussy
in those days...), pianistically superlative --and I mean that-- but not
particularly Bachian. Tureck: terrible. Gould: pretty good if you like
it nervy. Martins: better than Gould, but still uneven performances.
I prefer this music on harpsichord or clavichord. My favorite set is
Colin Tilney's on Hyperion. It's not cheap but it's great. You can't
play it at high volume, though, especially the book that's on
clavichord.
Regards,
MrT
Simon Roberts
: I think I most liked Edwin Fischers performance. Sometimes I found his
: changes in tempi and touch too exagerated though. Gould, needless to say,
: played in a completely different manner. He leads the hammering group of
: performers. I, however, liked him much more compared to the other
: "hammerers" because of his mercurial energy and excentricity. I would need
: to be in a Gould mood though to to be able to listen to him for a longer
: stretch. To sum it up I would probably enjoy Fischer the most and when in
: the mood for it I would listen to Gould. I would even consider listening to
: the boring "singing tone" performances as background music.
Why spend money on boring performances (Schiff's strikes me as by far the
least impressive of his Bach recordings) as background music when, if you
must treat this as background music, all you have to do is turn down the
volume on a good performance? Otherwise, what you say seems reasonable
enough - but try to hear Feinberg if you can. If you do end up getting
Fischer's, make sure you get the right transfer (Pearl or the more recent
of the two EMI transfers).
Simon
jonas
I惻l get back to you as soon as I have listened to Feinberg.
Jonas
"jonas" <jo...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:f%5j6.13792$Qb7.2...@newsb.telia.net...
Ramon Khalona
jonas wrote:
> I guess I have to listen to Feinberg as well after all the recommendations.
> I´ll get back to you as soon as I have listened to Feinberg.
For those looking for Feinberg's Russian Disc set, a new batch has been pressed
and is available from musicabona.com. FWIW.
Ramon Khalona
(not assoc. with MB)
John Harkness
wrote:
Thanks -- having heard so many golden opinions of this, I've been
roaming the web looking for it. Nice little site. And apparently they
don't try to screw you on shipping.
John Harkness
Mike Flemmer
Betty Oberacker, piano
"J.S.Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book Two Complete"
Klavier Records KS-567 [1979, 2 LP, Stereo]
This is the best WTCII I've heard so far. Early in Betty's career as a
pianist, she decided to make the WTCII her life study and her 'signature'
work. In the 70's she performed recitals of the complete WTCII completely
from memory to wide acclaim. She still performs it occasionally.
Oberacker achieves some remarkable moments in this performance. Is it a
'romantic' performance? Not really. Much better than that. This
performance is closer to how Argerich performs Bach- bright, clear, and with
seemingly unlimited skill and freedom to achieve whatever she wants in the
music. Bach here is respected and there are no tempo gimmicks, octave
gimmicks, etc... Repeats are all played and are almost the same way each
time and it works. Ornamentation is just right and not flashy. Only in the
f minor Prelude does Betty add some beautiful ornaments that are very
effective and makes one think "why don't others play it this way?"
The audio is unique and probably utilizes the closest piano mics ever
attempted in a piano recording. No compression is used.
Unfortunately it has not been re-released on CD. And it's very difficult to
find in a used classical LP store. However, all efforts to find it at any
cost will be well worth it. Especially for collectors of WTC on piano.
Unfortunately she never recorded the WTCI, only Book II. My review is at
http://www.jsbach.org/wellclavier.html and there is picture of the cover.
Search far and wide. This one is a must find. If I were to put my hundreds
of LP's in one high pile, with favorites high in the pile, Betty's would be
at the very top.
Mike
samir golescu
Except, perhaps, for Eunice Norton's.....
ESH Tooter
harpsichord, even her playel, is closer to organ than to piano. For me, Gould,
Feinberg, Nikolayeva, Loesser, and Fischer (in no particular order) represent
the pantheon of WTC. Come to think of it, there are few pieces of music that
have so many performances of such high quality and so utterly different from
each other.
ESH Tooter
pressed
and is available from musicabona.com. FWIW. >>
Yes, that's the transfer to get.
ESH Tooter
the note!!!
Tooter
ESH Tooter
gimmicks, etc. >>
Does this mean that if she was playing Bach's instrument she would only have
used the 8 foot strings?
Tooter
LaVirtuosa
Sorry the harpsichord sounds bad-I already said that-please lurk before you
type. It's her integrity that I admire. *******Val
LaVirtuosa
>used the 8 foot strings?
Would someone please challenge this guy?
*******Val
LaVirtuosa
Steve Emerson
...and is the same one sold by Tower.com.
SE.
Max Schmeder
> Richter's
> is an impressionistic view of the set (he was playing a lot of Debussy
> in those days...), pianistically superlative --and I mean that-- but not
> particularly Bachian.
Not particularly Bachian unless you happen to associate contrapuntal clarity
with that composer.
Max
Max Schmeder
> Try and locate this superb WTCII:
>
> Betty Oberacker, piano
So who the hell is the Betty dame?
Max Schmeder
Tooter's got a good point. If it's okay to double the octaves on a harpsichord,
why not on the piano?
Max
David Wake
> If it's okay to double the octaves on a harpsichord, why not on the
> piano?
One reply might be that on a harpsichord, *everything* is
octave-doubled, while on a piano, only selected notes are.
David
jonas
He gives me a headache.
Jonas
"jonas" <jo...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:f%5j6.13792$Qb7.2...@newsb.telia.net...
> Thanks for all your replies regarding "romantic recordings" of the well
> tempered Clavier.
> I went to Amazon to listen to different versions and came to some
> conclusions.
> As many of you suggested, Edwin Fischer´s recording was "romantic" in the
> sense I believe Casals meant when he said that Mozart should be played as
> Chopin and chopin schould be played like Mozart.(I go one step further and
> thinks it could be applied to Bach as well). With romantic I mean
emotional
> without sentimentality and in Bach´s case also with beauty and religious
> mystery. When browsing amazon I found many standard performances that
didn´t
> deviate much from one another. One thing that struck me was the overall
> difficulty in producing a singing tone. There was just too much hammering
> for my taste. Another thing I thought of was that the different voices in
> the Fugues were often to marked, as to show the listener that "I"( the
> performer) am able to follow all the voices, instead of taking a delicate
> care of all the melodic lines. Some, like Andras Schiff for instance,
tried
> to play with a more delicate and "singing" approach. I, however, often
found
> their approaches boring and predictable instead. Among the performances
that
> stood out was Edwin Fischer´s, who both had a singing tone and was
exciting,
> and of course Glenn Gould´s.
John Harkness
wrote:
Where it's listed as a special order -- "we'll keep checking its
availalbitiy for you."
John Harkness
Joel Lidz
way Fischer did, even if the modern piano had been available to him?
Joel Warren Lidz, Ph.D.
Department of Philosophy
Bentley College
Waltham, MA 02154
jl...@bentley.edu
"Simon Roberts" <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:96jtkr$sg7$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Henk van Tuijl
"Joel Lidz" <jwl...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:Zrtj6.907$lx.8...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> Is there anyone out there who can actually imagine Bach playing the WTC
the
> way Fischer did, even if the modern piano had been available to him?
>
and probably the best of its kind.
Henk
Nicolas Hodges
>Is there anyone out there who can actually imagine Bach playing the WTC the
>way Fischer did, even if the modern piano had been available to him?
Yes, I can easily imagine that. I can also imagine Bach wearing a Santa
Claus suit, but that doesn't have any bearing on either possibility's
validity.
I would have thought that was obvious to a philosopher such as yourself
:-)
--
Nic
"Music is not sound: it is the breath of the mind. And style is halitosis."
Simon Roberts
: Is there anyone out there who can actually imagine Bach playing the WTC the
: way Fischer did, even if the modern piano had been available to him?
How could we know? I find it hard to believe that Bach played his music
in the dull, grim manner chosen by so many harpsichordists....
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
<3a8e4cc2....@nntp.attcanada.ca>:
The Sherman Oaks store had at least two of them as of a couple of weeks
ago. They were even faced out on the above-the-racks display.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Steve Emerson
> >> << For those looking for Feinberg's Russian Disc set, a new batch has been
> >> pressed
> >> and is available from musicabona.com. FWIW. >>
> >>
> >> Yes, that's the transfer to get.
> >
> >...and is the same one sold by Tower.com.
>
> Where it's listed as a special order -- "we'll keep checking its
> availalbitiy for you."
They produced one for a friend recently without episode; that same
disclaimer was in force at the time. (And if new ones have been
pressed...) But who knows. The Czech Republic lead is certainly useful
to know about.
SE.
samir golescu
As someone fascinated with historic editions of WTC (is there a HIP virus
instilled somewhere deep in my guts?), I remind you that as early an
edition as Czerny's suggested, e.g., the C Minor Fugue (WTCI) to be played
with the last theme in the bass doubled. Busoni, positively obsessed with
organ sonorities as he was (which probably, among other elements, made him
the absolutely unique pianist that he was) pushed these text alterations
even further. Edwin Fischer used to play the B Minor Prelude (WTCI)
with the bass in light portato octaves. Maria Yudina doubled the bass in
the end of the F Minor Fugue (WTCI)--the effect was absolutely gorgeous.
Etc. etc.
For the record, I don't think Richter's performance could be correctly
defined as "impressionistic". The sonorities might be subtle and, most of
the times (except for some big strettos in the big fugues), under mf, but
the superhuman clarity of each line, the little or not at all use of
pedal, the abstractness (as opposed to sensuousness) of the employed
sonorities deny an impressionistic label, IMHO.
regards,
SG
Joel Lidz
Joel
"Nicolas Hodges" <n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Rhf+sSCr...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk...
Edward Jasiewicz
quote from Schumann's writing about Bach:
[regarding Czerny's edition of the WTC:]
""Czerny's share in this consists of a preface, fingering,
metronome markings, and intimations regarding character and
performance. The preface is rather brief and written too hastily:
it would be possible to connect all kinds of rich thoughts with
this work of works. As to the fingering, this is Czerny's
business, and he understands it well; of course we have not tried
out all of his fingerings. We approve, for the most part, of his
tempo indications and also of his introductory remarks on the
performance of the whole, as well as of his indications for
shading of each piece; the latter instructions we consider
expecially desirable, for nothing can be more tiresome or
contrary to the meaning of Bach than to drone out his fugues or
to restrict one's representation of his creations to a mere
emphasis on the successive entries of the principal theme. Such
rules are suited to students. But most of Bach's fugues are
character pieces of the highest type; some of them truly poetic
creations, each of which demands it individual expression, its
individual lights and shades. A Philistine accentuation of the
entries of the fugue subject is far from sufficient. A pleasing
portrait of Bach adorns the title page; he looks like a
schoolmaster with a world at his command."
Another perspective is to consider that Bach judiciously coupled
his themes with various counter-material along the way, often
[usually...] which are more interesting [to empasize] than the
theme itself, esp.as this material changes throughout the
development of the work [and and arguably contains the "real" art
of Bach's workings, anyway...]. Why keep "showing" what the
listener probably already knows quite well by the second entry,
considering the skill with which Bach chose/invented his themes
in the first place?
-ed
ESH Tooter
<< >Does this mean that if she was playing Bach's instrument she would only
have
>used the 8 foot strings?
lavirtuosa answered:
<<Would someone please challenge this guy?
*******Val >>
By all means, Val, if you think I need answering, please do so directly. From
all I've read of your posts, you're quite capable. You clearly have a good ear
and a good mind and a developed taste. I've enjoyed and learned from many of
your posts.
All I meant to suggest was, as Max confirms, the topic of doubling is not so
simple. More importantly, it seems to me that Bach's art cries out for
musicians to take a free hand in experimenting. It is for us as listeners to
judge each performer's success, but authenticity is nonsense. Musicians may
learn much from studying historic practice and it may help them to perform
Bach's music in new ways, but they will not achieve authenticity, except in a
subjective sense.
If we could travel back to 1720 and hear Bach playing
Handel's haprsichord suites, do you think he would have attempted to play tham
as Handel did?
That Guy Tooter
ESH Tooter
playing being church-like. It was an honest inquiry, but I had apparently
already irritated you. However, you've misunderstood my comment as much as I,
yours.
If you have been lurking on these boards for any time, you might have noticed
that I have a profound respect for Landowska's art. I believe she was one of
the great musical geniuses of the century. Perhaps we are not so far apart.
samir golescu
An interesting quote indeed--thanks.
> Another perspective is to consider that Bach judiciously coupled
> his themes with various counter-material along the way, often
> [usually...] which are more interesting [to empasize] than the
> theme itself, esp.as this material changes throughout the
> development of the work [and and arguably contains the "real" art
> of Bach's workings, anyway...]. Why keep "showing" what the
> listener probably already knows quite well by the second entry,
> considering the skill with which Bach chose/invented his themes
> in the first place?
It happens that I'd agree with you, with the reservation that I don't see
the matter as an "either/or" thing. The performer can/has to do *both*,
things, i.e. to put in balance the "oneness" of the fugue, as expressed in
the indefatigable reiteration of the theme, and its "multiplicity', as
evident, as you say, in the continuing changes appearing throughout the
development of each fugue (which developments, contrary to common wisdom,
do not conform themselves to a given-once-for-all "fugue recipe", but
correspond to the unicity of each subject of each piece).
regards,
SG
ESH Tooter
Samir wrote:
<< It happens that I'd agree with you, with the reservation that I don't see
the matter as an "either/or" thing. The performer can/has to do *both*,
things, i.e. to put in balance the "oneness" of the fugue, as expressed in
the indefatigable reiteration of the theme, and its "multiplicity', as
evident, as you say, in the continuing changes appearing throughout the
development of each fugue (which developments, contrary to common wisdom,
do not conform themselves to a given-once-for-all "fugue recipe", but
correspond to the unicity of each subject of each piece). >>
Isn't the incredible richness of possibilities in Bach's music (nothing quite
like it anywhere) the result of the almost infinite number of ways one can
emphasize and relate themes and "counter-material"? At their best the choices
made by the performers reach us almost as improvisation, voices in conversation
at the moment we hear them, developing their argument.
Tooter
LaVirtuosa
>playing being church-like
Tooter,
It's ok. This is what I meant:
As you know, Wanda said she played Bach "his way", and I believe she did. She
just went to the next level beyond simply making pretty contrapuntal sounds on
the keyboard.
I'm trying to avoid the cliche about "finding the soul of the music."
Listening to her is like hearing a sermon from Wanda on how to play Bach, and,
in addition, the spiritual nature of Bach, at least her very sincere concept of
it, is clearly portrayed here.
> Perhaps we are not so far apart.
We're not-I just can't always tell if your joking or not.
Best regards,
Valerie
LaVirtuosa
>way Fischer did
Not I.
Valerie Kraemer
LaVirtuosa
I fully appreciate what you're saying. We need to think creatively and try new
experiments. Please allow me to explain why I strongly disagree about doubling
in the WTC:
Octave doubling upsets the architecture of the whole. Unless you're doing a
whole new variation on a fugue or prelude, which is wide open as far as I'm
concerned, leave out the doublings. Bela
Bartok did some arrangements of Italian harpsichord music which turns out to be
mostly octave doublings (I have the sheet music), and it's just too
overpowering to be pleasant. Bach loved French harpsichord music, which has
very understated and suggestive qualities in it (politeness, if you will. That
influence shows up all over the place in the WTC.
Franz Liszt was very wise indeed to transcribe Bach's organ Preludes and Fugues
and the great Fantasy and Fugue in G minor to the piano instead violating the
Divine Holy Sanctum of the 48.
Valerie
LaVirtuosa
Tooter,
Not to challenge you personally, but as a belated reply to you on this issue of
doubling, please read my new post today in reply to Samir.
Valerie
LaVirtuosa
>He gives me a headache.
It could just be monitor-induced eyestrain.
Valerie
John Harkness
wrote:
>Is there anyone out there who can actually imagine Bach playing the WTC the
>way Fischer did, even if the modern piano had been available to him?
>
>Joel Warren Lidz, Ph.D.
No, but then, I can't imagine any 20th Century musician playing the
WTC the way that Bach did, not that we have any way of knowing how
Bach played it.
What's your point?
John Harkness
Max Schmeder
> If you do end up getting
> Fischer's, make sure you get the right transfer (Pearl or the more recent
> of the two EMI transfers).
So what's the deal on the Naxos transfers? I've been out of the loop for a
while.
thanks,
Max
>
>
> Simon
Max Schmeder
> A Philistine accentuation of the
> entries of the fugue subject is far from sufficient.
Some famous commentator said that the Bb in the bass at the end of
Czerny's edition of the Bb prelude (bk I) was the most "Philistine
note in the history of music" - or something to that effect. But I
can't remember who said that... Samir probably knows. Samir?
Max
Max Schmeder
Good point. A reply to that would be... WHO CARES?
:-)
Max
> David
Simon Roberts
: Simon Roberts wrote:
Reviews say they're over-filtered and, thus, dull; I don't know how they
compare to the first EMI (assuming anyone's made the comparison).
Simon
David Wake
>
> Some famous commentator said that the Bb in the bass at the end of
> Czerny's edition of the Bb prelude (bk I) was the most "Philistine
> note in the history of music" - or something to that effect. But I
> can't remember who said that... Samir probably knows. Samir?
I think it was Donald Frances Tovey, in *his* edition.
David
Max Schmeder
Hi Valerie,
Tooter's reply actually addresses every point you made (I don't know if you
realized that) with the exception of what you said about octave doubling upsetting
the architecture. To that I would say that doubling can also accentuate or
reinforce the structure. Or, if you like, octave doubling can accentuate or
reinforce the emotional surge we're supposed to feel there, anyway.
Ornaments aren't at all different in this aspect. Neither are changes in tempo.
Neither are changes in dynamics.
It's hard for me to imagine Italian harpsichord music pleasantly transferred to the
piano, with or without octave doublings. Blech! Some label recently reissued some
Spanish pianist's recordings from the 60's - he plays all of Cabezon's works. Can
you imagine that?!
Max
Matthew B. Tepper
fx1.aol.com>:
Or it could mean that he doesn't like Gould's playing.
Joel Lidz
which means that while we cannot know precisely how Bach might have played
the WTC, we do know how he would not have played it.
Joel
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:3a8f58d4....@nntp.attcanada.ca...
John Harkness
wrote:
>My point is that we now have some knowledge of Baroque performance practice,
>which means that while we cannot know precisely how Bach might have played
>the WTC, we do know how he would not have played it.
>
>Joel
>
We know how he would not have played it in the middle of the 18th
Century. We've no idea how he would not have played it in the middle
of the 20th Century. Deciding that we should play 18th Century music
as if it were still the 18th Century is a chimera at best, and a
distinctly modern idea. Saying that Fisher's playing is unlike
anything Bach might have done with music is like saying that we should
light our productions of Shakespeare with torches.
John Harkness
samir golescu
Another great edition, with sensible comments--see f.i. the warning that,
in the end of the E Major Fugue (WTCII), the pianist should avoid the feel
of a patriotic song (God Save the Queen or... I forget, but you got the
idea).
regards,
SG
<<Melchett : Unhappily Blackadder, the Lord High Executioner is dead.
Blackadder : Oh woe! Murdered of course.
Melchett : No, oddly enough no. They usually are but this one just got
careless one night and signed his name on the wrong dotted line. They came
for him while he slept.>>
ESH Tooter
to play this music, and the test must be what works within the context of a
given interpretation. What may make for structural integrity in Val's playing
of the WTC on her piano may be very different when instrument or sensibility
is changed. What laws shall we pass to Jaques Loussier or, as discussed in
another recent thread, Malloch in AoF? Each must find its inner integrity.
Tooter
ESH Tooter
<< >My point is that we now have some knowledge of Baroque performance
practice,
>which means that while we cannot know precisely how Bach might have played
>the WTC, we do know how he would not have played it.
>
>Joel
>
John Harkness replied:
<<We know how he would not have played it in the middle of the 18th
Century. We've no idea how he would not have played it in the middle
of the 20th Century. Deciding that we should play 18th Century music
as if it were still the 18th Century is a chimera at best, and a
distinctly modern idea >>
...and to complete the notion, we have no idea how Bach might have played his
music on Fischer's piano which, whatever instruments Bach played on, was
inconceivable to him.
I do wonder what expressive devices Bach made use of when he sat at his
clavichord.
Tooter
mt
<<I'm trying to avoid the cliche about "finding the soul of the music."
Listening to her is like hearing a sermon from Wanda on how to play
Bach, and, in addition, the spiritual nature of Bach, at least her very
sincere concept of it, is clearly portrayed here.>>
Sermons were never my thing, and to my ears (what matters), she sounds
terrible. And you don't have to apologize for a harmless metaphor such
as "finding the soul of the music". In musical parlance, it's almost a
technical term, an abuse "sans importance".
Regards,
MrT
Joel Lidz
sociohistorical situation consitutive of who one is?
To say that "anything Bach might have done with music is like saying that we
should
light our productions of Shakespeare with torches" assumes that lighting is
to plays what performance practice is to a composition, which is doubtul at
best. Perhaps a better analogy would be performing Shakespeare in a foreign
language.
Joel
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:3a8fd66f....@nntp.attcanada.ca...
mt
<<Perhaps a better analogy would be performing Shakespeare in a foreign
language.>>
It's done all the time. And the movie adaptations, famously by Welles,
Olivier, Polanski and Kurosawa. It's still Shakespeare.
To mention something more recent, there's an endless array of
configurations to play an Ellington composition. Again, it's done all
the time (and was done all the time by Ellington, his band, and subsets
of same).
One of the most damaging consequences of the HIP thing has been the
extreme, even ridiculous caution with which certain works and composers
are approached. That's not what performing music is about. I doubt that
anyone can perform to his full potential under such strictures.
Regards,
MrT
samir golescu
> Could Bach have been Bach if he were living in the 20th century?
He is "living", in a sense, in the 20th century, through us all.
> Or is the sociohistorical situation consitutive of who one is?
Yes, of who Bach is, as much as of who we are. There is no other way than
compromising between the two. The "purity" of the "original" paradigm,
even if inherently preferable (which I much doubt) is lost forever.
> To say that "anything Bach might have done with music is like saying that we
> should
> light our productions of Shakespeare with torches" assumes that lighting is
> to plays what performance practice is to a composition, which is doubtul at
> best. Perhaps a better analogy would be performing Shakespeare in a foreign
> language.
Even if so, I wonder whether there is any chance that Euripides's Elektra
will be better understood today if staged in the ancient Greek...
samir golescu
> It's done all the time. And the movie adaptations, famously by Welles,
> Olivier, Polanski and Kurosawa. It's still Shakespeare.
Not only, but I hardly remember an English King Lear or a Macbeth even
approaching Kurosawa's free (especially in RAN) adaptations. (Not even the
beloved Sir Olivier, IMO). That I found the most credible Hamlet
(acting-wise) to be Derek Jacobi's, who happens to be British (for a
problematic character with which credibility is an issue), that's another
story....
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
: Could Bach have been Bach if he were living in the 20th century? Or is the
: sociohistorical situation consitutive of who one is?
: To say that "anything Bach might have done with music is like saying that we
: should
: light our productions of Shakespeare with torches" assumes that lighting is
: to plays what performance practice is to a composition, which is doubtul at
: best. Perhaps a better analogy would be performing Shakespeare in a foreign
: language.
Or even with modern accents and stage effects. More important questions,
assuming we care at all about Bach's intentions, include (a) whether he
would have cared at all how someone else would have played his music,
especially if that person was playing it in a context so different from
his own and even (b) whether he cared how others played his music at the
time. Is either question something concerning which he had
intentions/wishes?
Simon
ESH Tooter
<< One of the most damaging consequences of the HIP thing has been the extreme,
even ridiculous caution with which certain works and composers are approached.
That's not what performing music is about. I doubt that anyone can perform to
his full potential under such strictures. >>
Well said. Amen! However I'm not sure it is a HIP induced caution.
ESH Tooter
Kurosawa's free (especially in RAN) adaptations. (Not even the beloved Sir
Olivier, IMO). That I found the most credible Hamlet (acting-wise) to be Derek
Jacobi's, who happens to be British (for a problematic character with which
credibility is an issue), that's another story.... >>
Actually, there is a wonderfully lively and probing King Lear in English
(though not be Englishmen) with James Earl Jones as Lear, Raul Julia as Edmund,
and other notables. It makes clear what few Lears I've seen have achieved,
that there is much humor in this very dark play.
As to Kurasawa's two Shakespeare films, they are clearly adaptations.
Shakespeare's art does not exist so much in story as in language. This is why
most films of Shakespeare (Kurasawa excepted) do not succeed very well. The
visual spectacle and realism of film overwhelms Shakespeare's verbal imagery.
One must either create a new work, as Kurasawa does in which the imagery of
Macbeth or Lear are made cinematic and the language is dropped, or one must
film a staged version.
Thus the parallel we have been seeking to music does not really apply. I
suspect if we had a video of Bach playing his WTC, we would find it as
compelling in the 20th century as it was in the 18th. The real problem is that
there is too little information available to know the true intricacies of the
performing tradition back then. As a result, if all we aim at is historical
accuracy, or if we are inhibited by reverence for the few facts we have, we get
a kind of least common denomenator of true 18th century practice. It is only
through imaginative recreation that we can make the music of Bach's time live.
Can you imagine performers of the 22nd century attempting to perform in the
style of Ray Charles or John Coltrane with only a musical score, a few
paintings or photographs, and some treatises on performing practice to guide
them?
Tooter
ESH Tooter
<< It's hard for me to imagine Italian harpsichord music pleasantly transferred
to the
piano, with or without octave doublings. Blech! Some label recently reissued
some
Spanish pianist's recordings from the 60's - he plays all of Cabezon's works.
Can
you imagine that?! >>
Max,
How do you feel about Marcelle Meyer's Rameau on piano?
Tooter
ESH Tooter
>>He gives me a headache.
>
>It could just be monitor-induced eyestrain.
>
>Valerie
Or it could mean that he doesn't like Gould's playing. >>
Inconceivable! (to me, anyway)
Tooter
Matthew B. Tepper
mq1.aol.com>:
Well, *I* don't like Gould's playing. Deal with it.
samir golescu
On 19 Feb 2001, ESH Tooter wrote:
> <<I hardly remember an English King Lear or a Macbeth even approaching
> Kurosawa's free (especially in RAN) adaptations. (Not even the beloved Sir
> Olivier, IMO). That I found the most credible Hamlet (acting-wise) to be Derek
> Jacobi's, who happens to be British (for a problematic character with which
> credibility is an issue), that's another story.... >>
>
> Actually, there is a wonderfully lively and probing King Lear in English
> (though not be Englishmen) with James Earl Jones as Lear, Raul Julia as Edmund,
> and other notables. It makes clear what few Lears I've seen have achieved,
> that there is much humor in this very dark play.
Don't know this one. To be looked for.
> As to Kurasawa's two Shakespeare films, they are clearly adaptations.
> Shakespeare's art does not exist so much in story as in language. This is why
> most films of Shakespeare (Kurasawa excepted) do not succeed very well. The
> visual spectacle and realism of film overwhelms Shakespeare's verbal imagery.
> One must either create a new work, as Kurasawa does in which the imagery of
> Macbeth or Lear are made cinematic and the language is dropped, or one must
> film a staged version.
Very well said.
> Thus the parallel we have been seeking to music does not really apply. I
> suspect if we had a video of Bach playing his WTC, we would find it as
> compelling in the 20th century as it was in the 18th.
Indeed. I was *pretending* I conceded to the pertinence of such analogies.
regards,
SG
Clifford Ando
> As to Kurasawa's two Shakespeare films, they are clearly adaptations.
> Shakespeare's art does not exist so much in story as in language.
> This is why most films of Shakespeare (Kurasawa excepted) do not
> succeed very well. The visual spectacle and realism of film
> overwhelms Shakespeare's verbal imagery. One must either create a new
> work, as Kurasawa does in which the imagery of Macbeth or Lear are
> made cinematic and the language is dropped, or one must film a staged
> version.
I disagree. Shakespeare's art was theater. Quite apart from
considerations of narrative structure, it seems to me to make little
sense to argue that the plays were not meant to be heard while their
action was viewed.
As to stage versions: Watch the recent movies of Richard III and
Titus. The former was probably fine in the theater, but it makes a pretty
bad movie. Loncraine clearly had little idea what to do when people
weren't speaking, and the pacing (and narrative) suffer horribly as a
result.
samir golescu
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Clifford Ando wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2001, ESH Tooter wrote:
> > As to Kurasawa's two Shakespeare films, they are clearly adaptations.
> > Shakespeare's art does not exist so much in story as in language.
> > This is why most films of Shakespeare (Kurasawa excepted) do not
> > succeed very well. The visual spectacle and realism of film
> > overwhelms Shakespeare's verbal imagery. One must either create a new
> > work, as Kurasawa does in which the imagery of Macbeth or Lear are
> > made cinematic and the language is dropped, or one must film a staged
> > version.
> I disagree. Shakespeare's art was theater. Quite apart from
> considerations of narrative structure, it seems to me to make little
> sense to argue that the plays were not meant to be heard while their
> action was viewed.
I apologize, I am not sure I understand. Where was said that the plays
weren't meant to be heard while their action was viewed?
regards,
SG
ESH Tooter
>>>He gives me a headache.
>>
>>It could just be monitor-induced eyestrain.
>>
>>Valerie
>
oy @earthlink wrote:
>Or it could mean that he doesn't like Gould's playing. >>
>
Tooter wrote:
>Inconceivable! (to me, anyway)
>
>Tooter
oy @earthlink wrote again:
Well, *I* don't like Gould's playing. Deal with it. >>
Does Mr. Gould always make you so angry?
Tooter
Matthew B. Tepper
ch1.aol.com>:
I like his Wagner CD, mostly because the arrangements are so over-the-top;
but that's about it these days.
LaVirtuosa
>Handel's haprsichord suites, do you think he would have attempted to play
>tham
>as Handel did?
>
Good question. In 1720 there was a narrower field of influence to draw from
compared to today. Both of them wrote "intellectual" music as distinguished
from "passionate" music (like the "romantic" Monteverdi, for example, compared
to the "intellectual" Elizabethans). In 2001 we have articles in, for example,
"Piano and Keyboard" with Krystian Zimerman discussing "romantic Bach" in terms
of husband and wife; perhaps he had been reading Landowska's book and
interpreting her concept of "romantic" as purely sexual, (an idea reinforced,
in the opinion of some, by a double entendre in one of his cantatas) whereas he
could have reallly been writing "romantically" about religeous "angst" for the
redemption his soul. There is so much variety in the WTC that it is beyond
simple categorizations.
Valerie
LaVirtuosa
>realized that
Actually, I do. Tooter and I are beginning to understand one another. But
thank you.
Valerie
Brendan R. Wehrung
How Shakespeare has been delivered to the audience has changed over the
years. I believe modern performance practice integrates action and
delivery more than at the turn of the century (which is surely what
Shakespeare expected--shades of HIP) when the famous parts were delivered
more like arias. After all, some of it was Great Art, was it not,
although I can't conceive of "to be or not to be" repeated if delivered
exceedingly well. The downside is that to get on with the action, I think
his lines are sometimes delivered too fast, rather like some music is
played to get an edge, losing poetry.
I was wondering about this when the thread on early Shakespearian actor
recordings was in progress.
Brendan
Max Schmeder
> However, but going back to Landowska is like
> going back to church. ********Valerie
That doesn't sound very fun. Maybe you meant listening to Landowska is like "going
to church." (as opposed to "going *back* to church*).
I listened to her this morning to see what you meant. Yes, it *is* like going to
church. I fell asleep in the pew. She has a way of sounding like she is in an
eternal ritard. Occasionally she goes comatose. I thought she was going to
suffocate on her own vomit in the c-minor fugue (bk II).
With those incredibly mean things said, let me also say that when Landowska is at
her best in the WTC, she brings out the profundity of the pieces more than anyone
else. Yes, Feinberg is unbelievably natural, but his expressions are often
arbitrary (his tempo fluctuations especially) and although it is clear that he was
playing the entire thing as soon as he was born, it can also be distracting when he
starts playing around with it (still my favorite piano version).
Landowska makes you feel that something extraordinarily important is taking place.
The fugues sound epic. Biblical. Yes, like going to church.
But even though hers is my favorite WTC of all, it doesn't even rank in my top 10
of harpsichord versions...
:-O
Max
Max Schmeder
Hi Tooter,
I haven't heard it. But a lot of Rameau can be successfully played on the piano.
F. Couperin? Maybe just a little. Early Italian harpsichord music? Very probably
not. Cabezon? No way! I tried that out myself!
Still, Goldberg magazine said that this guy's Steinway-Cabezon was a "classic" from
the 60's. People liked it back then, and obviously some producer has enough faith
in the product to reissue it. But then the reviewer went on to wonder why the
pianist would ever have taken on such an "unrewarding task" (recording all of
Cabezon's works) (!!!)
If some keyboardist comes out and actually does justice to Cabezon's works, I will
kiss his/her feet.
Max
> Tooter
Max Schmeder
dk's responsible for a lot of Tepper's anger and intolerance.
Tooter, do you like Gould's perf. of the CMaj prelude (I)? If
so... why?
thanks,
Max
Hou Fang-Lin
instrument...
"Max Schmeder" <maxsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A90DCFB...@hotmail.com...
Tord Kallqvist Romstad
> mt wrote:
>
> > Richter's
> > is an impressionistic view of the set (he was playing a lot of Debussy
> > in those days...), pianistically superlative --and I mean that-- but not
> > particularly Bachian.
>
> Not particularly Bachian unless you happen to associate contrapuntal clarity
> with that composer.
Have we been listening to the same recording? The lack of
contrapuntal clarity (partly caused by the terrible sound --- was it
recorded in a cave?) is one of the main reasons I dislike Richter's
WTC. When listening to Richter's fugues, I just hear repeated
statements of the subject accompanied by unclear murmuring of the
other voices. The terrible reverb makes matters even worse.
I deeply admire Sviatoslav Richter in general, and I have listened to
his WTC countless times, trying to understand the universal praise
this recording recieves everywhere. I still don't get it. This is
one of the very few WTC recordings which actually bore me.
--
Tord Romstad
Tord Kallqvist Romstad
> Changed my mind about Glenn Gould愀 WTC.
> He gives me a headache.
Glenn Gould was an artist who enjoyed taking chances. This resulted
in breathtakingly original and beautiful performances like his
recordings of Hindemith's third sonata and Bach's partitas.
Unfortunately, there were also occasions were he completely missed the
mark, resulting in spectacular disasters like his WTC. Among the many
"highlights" of this recording (the C major prelude from Book I has
already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread), listen to Gould
playing the b minor fugue of Book I. It takes an extraordinary
imagination to come up with such an utterly perverse and tasteless
interpretation. A comparison with Horowitz's D960 would not be out of
the place.
--
Tord Romstad
ESH Tooter
top 10
of harpsichord versions... >>
Max,
You came to my defense so well that I feel guilty saying how puzzled I am
regarding the above - all that vomit and love mixed. Well, perhaps you don't
consider Landowska's a real harpsichord performance, which I can accept.
As to this churchly business, Val and I have exchanged a few notes, and I
understand better what she means, but Landowska was a mischief-maker as well.
What she could get out of some of the dance movements is very lively and great
fun. Listen particularly to the way she treats the gavotte from the 5th French
suite.
In any case, Val's comment had more to do with spirituality and contact with
ultimate truths than anything reverential, but I should let Val speak for
herself in this.
Tooter
mt
<<You came to my defense so well that I feel guilty saying how puzzled I
am regarding the above - all that vomit and love mixed. Well, perhaps
you don't consider Landowska's a real harpsichord performance, which I
can accept.>>
I'm not Max, but I did express reservations about Landowska. I might as
well summarize my position by saying that I don'think Landowska was a
first-rate keyboardist. The comparison with great Bach players like
Edwin Fischer, Miecyslaw Horszowski or Samuel Feinberg is particularly
glaring. And if you limit yourself to harpsichordists, almost any of the
above-average currently active instrumentalists surpasses her (Hantai,
Asperen, Tilney, Gilbert, Pinnock, for example). And she was never as
good as Kirkpatrick, Valenti, or Puyana...
I don't deny her historical importance, but I cannot deny what my ears
tell me. Fischer's stature grows with time, Landowska's fades.
Regards,
MrT
ESH Tooter
<< I haven't heard it. But a lot of Rameau can be successfully played on the
piano.
F. Couperin? Maybe just a little. Early Italian harpsichord music? Very
probably
not. Cabezon? No way! I tried that out myself! >>
Max,
I can't say I have any knowledge of the music of Cabezon, though perhaps I
should. I know that somewhere back in my collection I have some clavichord
performances of his music from an old MHS LP. Is it your advice that I should
re-explore those? Seems to me that claviichord is much closer to piano than
harpsichord.
Just checked my data base and I have Hans Kann playing Cabezon on both clav and
organ, Hilde Langfort on organ, Isolde Ahlgrimm (a Landowska pupil) on
harpsichord and Bernard Brauchli on clav. These are mostly isolated movments
in collections of works. The Hans Kann is from an all-Cabezon LP.
Tooter
ESH Tooter
<< In 1720 there was a narrower field of influence to draw from compared to
today. >>
Without a lot of knowledge on research into this common sense suggests that
back in 1720, before the internet I think, performance practice was probably
much more localized. As even going back before WWII we find vast differences
in performance practice among orchestras in different parts of the world. Back
in 1720, my hunch is that things were even more localized, but the real point
may be that geniuses such as Bach and Handel may have been as individual in
their performance styles as they were in their composition.
The mind boggles at what we might have heard, Bach playing Louis Couperin or
Froeberger, Scarlatti playing Bach (Did he know Bach's music?), Handel diddling
with Rameau, the elder Scarlatti, or Purcell. Oh, to have a time machine!
What a monster concert some entrepreneur could organize back then for us today!
Tooter (getting control of himself again)
samir golescu
On 19 Feb 2001, ESH Tooter wrote:
> Max,
> You came to my defense so well that I feel guilty saying how puzzled I am
> regarding the above - all that vomit and love mixed.
...which is not the only reason we love Max.
samir golescu
> I thought she was going to suffocate on her own vomit in the c-minor
> fugue (bk II).
Did your teachers tell you that use of nauseating platitudes shouldn't be
mistaken for literary imagination?
Prescription: read ten times Baudelaire's 'Les Fleurs du Mal', then try
again.
cheers,
SG
P.S. BTW, if I seem patronizing, this is the softest answer among the
three I could think of.
ESH Tooter
<< dk's responsible for a lot of Tepper's anger and intolerance. Tooter, do you
like Gould's perf. of the CMaj prelude (I)? If so... why? >>
Well, first, I'm used to Mr. Tepper's way of posting, but was also having a
chuckle at the general hostility that Gould's playing seems to invite. They
all protest too much.
As to your question, one of the things that seems to grab me in music generally
is the tug of contrapuntal voices, and Gould is a master of bringing this out,
even in places where it is not normally found - e.g. the Wagner that Matthew
referred to. Yes, I'll even plead guilty to liking most of Gould's Mozart,
though I understand this is a cardinal sin which shall undoubtedly cause me to
burn or freeze eternally somewhere in the north of Canada.
As to your question on the 1st prelude specifically (I assume you mean book 1),
I probably like it less than much else in Gould's WTC. The first prelude seems
to me to be a masterpiece of ambiguity. Even just rhythmically it is filled
with hidden syncopations. Speaking as a listener only, the trick seems to be
in maintaining enough balance so that patterns can flicker in and out and
overlay each other. Everything speaks through implication rather than
statement. Gould may be a bit too insistent on things he wants us to hear to
let the ambiguities play fully.
Having said that, his performance is still good fun and I enjoy it fully.
Perhaps this has some of the contradictions of your Landowska as puking genius
comment.
Tooter
Simon Roberts
: Lavirtuosa wrote regarding performance practice:
: << In 1720 there was a narrower field of influence to draw from compared to
: today. >>
: Without a lot of knowledge on research into this common sense suggests that
: back in 1720, before the internet I think, performance practice was probably
: much more localized. As even going back before WWII we find vast differences
: in performance practice among orchestras in different parts of the world. Back
: in 1720, my hunch is that things were even more localized, but the real point
: may be that geniuses such as Bach and Handel may have been as individual in
: their performance styles as they were in their composition.
Indeed - especially Handel, with his extensive experiences in Italy and
England. But the more pressing question, for those interested in their
"intent" is whether they had any intentions at all concerning how other
people in other cultures would perform their music (assuming this is a
question they even considered). Would Bach have expected (say) an Italian
harpsichord player to play his (Bach's) music the way Bach would have?
Would he have insisted on it? Did he "intend" it?
Simon
ESH Tooter
considerations of narrative structure, it seems to me to make little
sense to argue that the plays were not meant to be heard while their
action was viewed. >>
Not sure where the "not meant o be heard while viewed" comes from, but Samir
already asked. The discussion has moved far beyond the point where the analogy
can be simply understood. We seem now to be talking about Shakespeare
directly.
On this, I'm not sure we disagree. Shakespeare's art most certainly was
theater. Those who treat it as poetry only miss the point. For this reason,
Gielgud, with his emphasis on text, was never as good as when he played Richard
II where he could enjoy being a reciter of poetry. His Lear is far less
interesting.
However, Shakespeare is theater in which the text provides the scenery and in
so doing, makes Shakespeare's space a universal space. Shakespeare is theater
but it is not film, and every film version I've seen which tries to keep
Shakespeare's language intact fails. It is very difficult to let the imagery
and music of Shakespeare's words play on the imagination while being bombarded
with giant technicolor images.
Perhaps more to the point, film suggests a level of reality that is at odds
with the universality Shakespeare's settings. Ultimately, King Lear plays best
on a blank stage without scenery. In this way the imagined cliffs of Dover may
be there or may not depending on whether we are in Gloucester's mind of Edgars.
Ultimately, they are not the Cliffs of Dover at all, but the edge of patience
from which escape is impossible, "Patience I need." Lear says before he knows
the profundity of what he is saying.
How many moments in theater come near that moment at the cliff? How does one
make that scene work on film? Only by leaving Shakespeare behind and
recreating the issues in a new universe with ones own images as Kurasawa does
in Ran.
It is pointless, I think, to draw any meaning from the above for the analogy to
keyboard performance practice that began the discussion.
Tooter
ESH Tooter
Landowska to Fischer, Feinberg, Horszowski, or Nikolayeva or Gould for that
matter. I can say unequivocally that to my ears Puyana (never heard a complete
WTC from him) and Kirkpatrick are pale beside Landowska. Although their
instruments may sound prettier, to my ear neither has anything like the
all-encompassing artistic vision of Landowska or any of the artists mentioned
above. That is not to say that I don't enjoy many of their performances, but
their performances are much more hit or miss affairs on a level with Hantai or
even a little below.
Given how frequently we seem to agree on chamber strings and piano recordings,
I guess our ears for harpsichord are tuned differently.
BTW, do you know the Harold Samuel recordings of Bach?
Tooter
ESH Tooter
> You came to my defense so well that I feel guilty saying how puzzled I am
> regarding the above - all that vomit and love mixed.
...which is not the only reason we love Max. >>
Let's hope not. ;-)
T.
ESH Tooter
<< Would Bach have expected (say) an Italian
harpsichord player to play his (Bach's) music the way Bach would have?
Would he have insisted on it? Did he "intend" it? >>
Or would he have hoped that Vivaldi might take one of his partitas and turn it
into a work for string orchestra?
vladimir
>Glenn Gould was an artist who enjoyed taking chances. This resulted
>in breathtakingly original and beautiful performances like his
Yes!
>listen to Gould
>playing the b minor fugue of Book I. It takes an extraordinary
>imagination to come up with such an utterly perverse and tasteless
>interpretation. A comparison with Horowitz's D960 would not be out of
>the place.
>
Presumably you refer to Horowitz's later D.960 on DG, which he knew was bad,
and which was posthumously released despite his expressed wishes to the
contrary. I see nothing perverse or tasteless about Horowitz's earlier
D.960 on Sony.
- Phil Caron
Andrej Kluge
>> listen to Gould playing the b minor fugue of Book I. It takes an
>> extraordinary imagination to come up with such an utterly perverse
>> and tasteless interpretation. A comparison with Horowitz's D960
>> would not be out of the place.
>>
> Presumably you refer to Horowitz's later D.960 on DG, which he knew
> was bad, and which was posthumously released despite his expressed
> wishes to the contrary. I see nothing perverse or tasteless about
> Horowitz's earlier D.960 on Sony.
*I* see nothing perverse or tasteless about Gould's b minor fugue of WTC
book I -- what's it all about?
Ciao
A.
Max Schmeder
> Max,
> I can't say I have any knowledge of the music of Cabezon, though perhaps I
> should. I know that somewhere back in my collection I have some clavichord
> performances of his music from an old MHS LP. Is it your advice that I should
> re-explore those? Seems to me that claviichord is much closer to piano than
> harpsichord.
The clavichord was more common in 16th century Spain than the harpsichord, so it is
very appropriate. A recent disk of 16th century Spanish keyboard music came out
two years ago (played on the clavichord), and was widely acclaimed. I don't like
it myself, but I don't have an appreciation for the clavichord (yet).
The best Cabezon on harpsichord that I've heard is played by Baiano. He really
teases out the beauty of the song transcriptions, but doesn't plumb the depths of
the tientos. Occasionally, he does something tantalyzing there and you realize how
amazing these pieces really could be.
Cabezon made a very strong impression on Willi Appel, but I think he saw the music
in quite a different light than I do.
Max
Max Schmeder
> The mind boggles at what we might have heard, Bach playing Louis Couperin or
> Froeberger, Scarlatti playing Bach (Did he know Bach's music?), Handel diddling
> with Rameau, the elder Scarlatti, or Purcell. Oh, to have a time machine!
> What a monster concert some entrepreneur could organize back then for us today!
Haven't we all fantasized this? I can't decide: Bach improvising or Beethoven
improvising. :-( It keeps me awake at night. Did you ever read Tintin where some
mischief-maker asks Captain Haddock whether he sleeps with his beard above or below
the covers?
Max
>
>
> Tooter (getting control of himself again)
Max Schmeder
> Tooter, to Max:
>
> <<You came to my defense so well that I feel guilty saying how puzzled I
> am regarding the above - all that vomit and love mixed. Well, perhaps
> you don't consider Landowska's a real harpsichord performance, which I
> can accept.>>
>
> I'm not Max, but I did express reservations about Landowska. I might as
> well summarize my position by saying that I don'think Landowska was a
> first-rate keyboardist. The comparison with great Bach players like
> Edwin Fischer, Miecyslaw Horszowski or Samuel Feinberg is particularly
> glaring. And if you limit yourself to harpsichordists, almost any of the
> above-average currently active instrumentalists surpasses her (Hantai,
> Asperen, Tilney, Gilbert, Pinnock, for example). And she was never as
> good as Kirkpatrick, Valenti, or Puyana...
Oh, no no no! :-( I'm so distressed. I really respect your opinion
regarding piano performances (it was through your recommendations that I
discovered Horszowski's Bach and Mozart - thank you thank you!), but you are
so so so off when it comes to the harpsichord!
no offense, of course...
...sorry,
Max
Max Schmeder
> > I thought she was going to suffocate on her own vomit in the c-minor
> > fugue (bk II).
>
> Did your teachers tell you that use of nauseating platitudes shouldn't be
> mistaken for literary imagination?
I was referring to people in comatoses. They sometimes choke on their own
vomit, you know.
> P.S. BTW, if I seem patronizing, this is the softest answer among the
> three I could think of.
No! Let me have it!
LaVirtuosa
>harpsichord player to play his (Bach's) music the way Bach would have?
Tooter and Simon,
I see no reason to believe that Bach was closed-minded about this. I do
believe that not many people had sufficient time or willpower to practice J.S.'
compositions in those days. Remember that quote where he said "You can play
the harpsichord as well as I do if you practice"? They might have been ashamed
of their lack of expertise in front of him.
Valerie