Bach on Piano?
Jarl Sigurd
not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
performed on harpsichord?
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to music mp3's of Jarl Sigurd's playing visit
http://geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/9381
Jaime Jean
stand Bach's clavier works played on anything else but piano, and
harpsichord would give me the creeps. Then it went the other way around. At
this point, I'm convinced Bach's music goes well beyond the instrument it's
played on: it can be wonderful on piano and on harpsichord, and even on
other instruments as well.
I have my own subjective standards as to how I like my Bach done, so I enjoy
an English Suite performed by Murray Perahia as much as I enjoy the same
work performed by Huguette Dreyfuss. Likewise, I loathe Glenn Gould as much
as I loathe Igor Kipnis. It goes well beyond the instrument they play, it's
the style, the respect for what *I* consider the Bach spirit, and the focus
on the music beyond the focus on the performer's abilities.
So I agree with you partially. I don't mean to be patronizing, but maybe you
have not heard enough Bach on piano. I suggest you to do that. And, if you
have - well, most definitely Bach does not sound quite as good when
performed on piano as when it is performed on harpsichord. For you, namely.
Med vennlig hilsen
Jaime
Jarl Sigurd <jarls...@geocities.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
XVpr3.34527$5r2....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
piano guy
A440A
>not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
>performed on harpsichord?
Greetings,
One large difference in hearing this music on the two instruments is the
tuning. Bach was not composing on an equally tuned keyboard, so there are a
lot of harmonic considerations that that the modern pianist is going to be
totally unaware of.
Most of the harpsichordists and fortepianists I have seen know the
difference that temperament makes, but the piano world is just waking up to it.
Regards,
Ed Foote
Precision Piano Works
Nashville, Tenn. USA
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
To email me, omit ".omit"
Bob Tucker
Jarl Sigurd wrote:
> Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
> not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
> performed on harpsichord?
>
Mark Smythe
No offense but it probably is just you. I have found J.S. Bach music to
be the most universal
and sounds good on any instrument. It may have a very different flavor
on piano but I like
to play bach on the synth sounds. I have yet to find a sound that doesnt
sound good with
Bach. Just my very flamboyant opinion about Bach
Mark
Colin Broom
many examples of succesful interpretations of Bach on piano as there are on
harpsichord. It largely comes down to who is playing it. Obviously the
music wasn't written for the piano, but as someone else said, Bach's music
has a great amount of flexibility within it that allows it to be transferred
to a great variety of timbres, from orchestra to mini-moog and still be
beautiful.
Having said all that, one potential problem that Keith Jarrett cited about
Bach on the piano (Jarrett has recorded many bach works, both on harpsichord
and on piano, usually on the ECM label) is that some musicians may tend to
approach the music with the idea of "look what the piano can do for Bach",
which is possibly counterproductive in terms of a succesful performance.
Jarrett himself said of the Bach keyboard works - "Thiss music does not need
my assistance".
But as I said at the beginning, it depends on who's listening, so the short
answer to your question is that it's probably just you.
regards,
Colin Broom, composer & lecturer
University of Strathclyde
Invention Ensemble website - www.strath.ac.uk/Other/invention-ensemble
"Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know. Those who want to
know also talk, but REALLY quietly, and with long pauses."
Jarl Sigurd <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:XVpr3.34527$5r2....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Norman Dryden
Jarl Sigurd wrote in message ...
>Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
>not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
>performed on harpsichord?
>
>Jarl Sigurd
>
designed to fit the features of the harpsichord which lacks sustaining power
and originally had no dynamic range. The solo instrument is best suited to
busy, short note-value, contrapuntal or fugal, decorated lines.
Similarly the 19th Century piano with its wide dynamic range and with
sustain and una chorda pedals could exploit long, flowing melody, contrasts
in volume, and differing emphasis on inner voices. The style of much
keyboard music is heavily influenced by the features of the keyboard
technology available to the composer. Chopin's music similarly exploited the
features available to him and most people would prefer it on a piano rather
than a harpsichord.
Regards
Norman
Christian Ohn
>
> Is it just me [...]
It might be not you, but rather the performer. To me, Richter on the
piano sounds good, and Gould sounds bad. Leonhardt on the harpsichord
sounds good, and Dreyfus sounds bad.
Your opinions may vary, but you should really try to listen to many
different performances both on the piano and on the harpsichord before
condemning one of the instruments rather than a particular performance.
--
Christian Ohn
christ...@univ-reims.cat.fr.dog (remove the two animals)
http://come.to.dog/christian.cat.ohn (ditto)
Clive Jones
<jarls...@geocities.com> writes
>Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
>not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
>performed on harpsichord?
>
Music joke follows...
Steven Spielberg wants to make a movie about famous composers using
Hollywood action stars, so he arranges auditions for Sylvester Stalone,
Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwartzenegger.
He asks Sly who he'd like to play: "I'd like to play Gershwin. Yep,
always liked his tunes.", spielberg nods. Turning to Willis, he asks the
same question, "I'd like to play Mozart. I like the elegance and
granduer of the period. That would expand my portfolio.", again,
speilberg nods in agreement. He then turns to Arnie, and Arnie says...
(scroll down)
(Keep going)
(Wait for it - it's a good one.)
"I'll be Bach."
Clive
H.E. Meyers
equally tuned keyboard, thus the title?
A440A wrote in message <19990809053146...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>>s it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
>>not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
>>performed on harpsichord?
>
Frank Weston
H.E. Meyers wrote in message ...
>I was unaware of this. Wasn't the Well Tempered Clavier created for an
>equally tuned keyboard, thus the title?
>
As you note, the title is "Well Tempered Clavier", not "Equal Tempered
Clavier".
Please, please, please, please, let's not go there again.
Frank Weston
Greg Presley
Jarl Sigurd wrote:
> Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
> not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
> performed on harpsichord?
>
> Jarl Sigurd
>
> to listen to music mp3's of Jarl Sigurd's playing visit
> http://geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/9381
Although Bach transposed many of his pieces written for other
instruments to harpsichord, (so we know he was very open to the idea
that most instruments could play music written for another), it is very
useful to listen to the qualities of the harpsichord, so that when we
perform his music on the piano, we can approach those qualities. Many
pianists feel that it is important to play many of the musical lines in
Bach legato. However, even when the line may have been played legato on
the harpsichord, the sound does not sustain on that instrument.
Furthermore, the style of the time asked for most lines to be played
semi-detached, especially the eighths and sixteenths. And that was on
the harpsichord! This detachedness gives tremendous rhythmic vitality to
the music. To emulate it on the piano, most of the time we should play
sharply staccato, especially in music of faster tempos. Many pianists
fail to do this, and the music sounds flabby and unarticulated. The
sound of the harpsichord has a very sharp attack at the beginning of the
note and a very quick dying away. The piano also attacks and dies, but
more slowly. Again, we have to look for ways to get this sharpness and
articulation into the piano. The slow movements on the other hand, sound
better on the piano, precisely because we can sustain. To cite a famous
piece, the Italian Concerto, the first and last movements sound better
on the harpsichord, the middle movement sounds better on the piano. But
it's part of the fun to see how well we can approximate the energetic
qualities of the harpsichord to the piano. Greg Presley
Praetorius
>not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
>performed on harpsichord?
>
The performer may have much to do with it, as may the particular
Bach piece in question. I generally "prefer" to hear Bach played on
an "authentic" harpsichord rather than a modern concert grand.
However, I generally have no problem hearing, say, the WTC or the
Inventions/Sinfonias on a modern piano (I haven't yet made up my
mind as to Bach on early "fortepiano", not even the 3 part Ricercare
from The Musical Offering). But with pieces intended to exploit the
opportunities provided by two keyboards (e.g., Italian Concerto,
Goldberg Variations), it takes either a particular technique (e.g.,
Glenn Gould) or some other special talent/musicianship for it to
come off convincingly (or "right") on the piano.
Frank Decolvenaere
Ian Kemmish
>fail to do this, and the music sounds flabby and unarticulated. The
>sound of the harpsichord has a very sharp attack at the beginning of the
>note and a very quick dying away. The piano also attacks and dies, but
As Ann Bond's book (amongst others) points out, those harpsichords which fail
to sustain well are generally those dating from the beginning of the 20th
Century revival of the intsrument. A properly built harpsichord will sustain
perfectly well. Even my first attempt at building one sustains except in the
two octave or so of the 4 ft register and the top few notes of the 8 fts.
[Since I'm posting in rec.music.makers.synth, I'll note in passing that most
synthesisers' `harpsichord' patches seem to be more of a caricature of what
people expect a harpsichord to sound like, than a real one:-)]
There are differences between piano and harpsichord, but they are generally
smaller than the differences between violin and harpsichord, and Bach arranged
many pieces for both of those, so one wouldn't say that a piano arrangement is
ipso fact invalid. Whether *particular features* of a piano arrangement or
performance invalidate it for you is subjective, but still very important for
you, of course
For myself, as I have learned what particular chords and progressions sound
like in different temperaments, I find it difficult to go back to listening to
or playing those same pieces in equal temperament, although I used to enjoy it
that way. On the other hand, I find that the difference between the front and
back 8 fts (at least on my instrument) is too great for some of the subtle
dynamic changes I got used to on the piano. Swings and roundabouts:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK
i...@five-d.com Tel: +44 1767 601 361
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Behind every successful organisation stands one person who knows the secret
of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important.
Johan van Veen
Jarl Sigurd wrote:
> Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
> not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
> performed on harpsichord?
In fact this discussion should be about whether this question is the
right one. You suggest that it matters whether it sounds well on a
particular instrument. But that, of course, is very subjective. What
sounds right to one listener may sound wrong to another one.
The fundamental question is: which factor decides on what instrument a
piece should be played? When we believe that everything that sounds well
to us, is right, then you can go on and on and on.
When, however, you believe that when we listen to Bach's music, we do so
because we want to know what he has to say, then the question is another
one: on which instrument Bach's ideas do come across best? I think that
everyone agrees that the best way to experience what Shakespeare had to
say, is to read (or listen to) his works in the language he used, and
that in every translation, how excellent it may be, something is lost.
It is the same with Bach's music: when you play his music on instruments
he didn't know, or didn't like, you don't allow him to say what he wants
to tell us. With a performance of harpsichord pieces on the piano, you
let the music say things Bach didn't intend to say. In fact that means
that you are not really interested in what Bach has to say. And that
means that in fact today's interpreter puts himself in the first place,
rather than the composer. In my view, that is a deadly sin. The composer
should always come first. (I am only talking about professional
interpreters of course, not about people enjoying playing Bach on the
piano at home.)
In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
--
Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
jvv...@casema.net
ubi deus ibi pax
Arctangent the Infallible
mean equally tempered?
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Arctangent the Infallible <.> wrote:
>Yes, let's all go there together. Didn't Bach
>mean equally tempered?
>
No. There's an excellent web site some place that has a lovely
discussion of historical temperments. People occasionally repost the
URL. Someplace in the uk, I think?
Perhaps we'll get lucky.
Equal temperment is a pretty newfangled idea, or at any rate
its popularity is pretty newfangled. What do you mean ALL your thirds
are out of whack? And ALL your fifths too? EEEW!
Greg Presley
Ian Kemmish wrote:
> In article <37AFBE72...@iea.com>, gpre...@iea.com says...
>
> >fail to do this, and the music sounds flabby and unarticulated. The
> >sound of the harpsichord has a very sharp attack at the beginning of the
> >note and a very quick dying away. The piano also attacks and dies, but
>
> As Ann Bond's book (amongst others) points out, those harpsichords which fail
> to sustain well are generally those dating from the beginning of the 20th
> Century revival of the intsrument. A properly built harpsichord will sustain
> perfectly well.
I remain skeptical. By sustain, do you mean that the sound of the sustained note
is close to the dynamic level of the moment of attack? Because this is something I
have never heard on any harpsichord, and I have heard some that are considered
fine instruments by harpsichordists. If you mean that there is some amount of
sound sustaining for quite some time, I would agree with you. But the overall
effect is still going to be DING ngngng, never DIIIIIIINNNNNGG. To ears used to
the sustaining power of a piano tone, which also dies away, the moment of attack
on the harpsichord is always going to register as the important moment of sound,
and what relatively little amound continues to sustain on the harpsichord,
especially on that little hair's breadth string is not going to register very
strongly in the ears, or in the mind which is trying hard to connect the sounds in
a way approaching a singing line. Thus the overall effect is detached and
articulate, relative to a piano sound. This is not pejorative, in my mind, just
different. Greg
A440A
>>mean equally tempered?
> No. There's an excellent web site some place that has a lovely
>discussion of historical temperments. People occasionally repost the
>URL. Someplace in the uk, I think?
Gosh, I hope you are talking about mine?
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
Bach didn't live in a time when equal was used. He lived inbetween the
restrictive meantone systems and the circulating, but unequal Well
Temperaments.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
> not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
> performed on harpsichord?
That's just you. Maybe you like just intonation better than ETS.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
shawn
incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
> In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
> interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC. While I understand the value
of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are welcome as
well.
Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:37B0A031...@casema.net...
>
>
> Jarl Sigurd wrote:
>
> > Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
> > not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
> > performed on harpsichord?
>
jerry and judy
<srey...@science.smith.edu> wrote:
>I can't tell whether you are being serious. If so, I think you are being
>incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
>
>> In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
>> interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>
>I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC.
I, enthusiastically, second that!
> While I understand the value
>of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are welcome as
>well.
Yeah, well, for me, that's really another and 'smaller' subject. The
Music's the thing.
If one hasn't appreciated, especially JSB, on the harpsichord AND the
modern piano, in different ways and at different points in their life,
with many very different interpretations etc., then one is missing out on
part of the whole universe of the late baroque. And consequently, one
should immerse his or herself in the experience that's been lacking!
Who knows what revelations you'll come away with? At the worse, you'll
confirm that you were justified in your original opinion. :) :0
Jerry
Johan van Veen
shawn wrote:
> I can't tell whether you are being serious. If so, I think you are being
> incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
>
> > In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
> > interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>
> I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC. While I understand the value
> of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are welcome as
> well.
Of course I am serious. Your misunderstanding becomes clear in the last
sentence: I like a fresh interpretation, as if that is opposed to a
'historically accurate' performance. Two things: there is no such a thing as a
'historically accurate' performance. The terminology used in the newsgroups is
'HIP' which means 'historically informed performance'. That means that a
performer uses the facts we are aware of. That doesn't result in one specific
performance which is *the* historically correct performance. That means,
secondly, that within the limits of HIP many different performances are
possible. For me the main thing is that every interpretation should remain
within the borders of what is historically justifiable. When you use the wrong
instrument - i.e. an instrument the composer didn't know - it is very likely
that you "discover" (in fact "invent") things within the music the composer
couldn't possibly have put in it. When you let the music - and therefore the
composer - say things they weren't intending to say, you are in fact telling a
lie. The point is: who *owns* the music, we or the composer himself? I will
never understand why people consider it to be obvious to respect the wishes of a
living composer about the way his music should be performed, and at the same
time think to have the right to do with music of dead composers whatever they
like. HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the composer,
dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to "early
music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
For me that is a matter of principle. When being a person who sticks to his
principles means being seen as close-minded, so be it.
--
Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
jvv...@casema.net
ubi deus ibi pax
>
Ethel Jean Saltz
>restrictive meantone systems and the circulating, but unequal Well
>Temperaments.
>Regards,
==================
Is that the meaning of WTC?
But it worked for me finding problems for my piano and it's ET. So
maybe Bach's stuff is really that good.
Be-ahavah uv-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend
Mac-Niet-Spin-Gal, 390 A.G. (after Galileo/1609)
Worlds Greatest Jewish Thinker - Spinoza-ETHICS
World's Greatest Songs - Psalms in Hebrew
World's Greatest Literature - TaNaK/Old Testament
mailto: nie...@airmail.net
jerry and judy
<jvv...@casema.net> wrote:
>shawn wrote:
>
>> I can't tell whether you are being serious. If so, I think you are being
>> incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
>>
>> > In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
>> > interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>>
>> I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC. While I understand the value
>> of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are welcome as
>> well.
>
>Of course I am serious. Your misunderstanding becomes clear in the last
>sentence: I like a fresh interpretation, as if that is opposed to a
>'historically accurate' performance. Two things: there is no such a thing as a
>'historically accurate' performance. The terminology used in the newsgroups is
>'HIP' which means 'historically informed performance'. That means that a
>performer uses the facts we are aware of.
But don't you see how limiting that is? Not for me or you, but for the
'great unwashed'. They need to be able to think that music is free
expression on the highest plane without a great tether of strict ties to
The Past! They'll come around, after they're hooked by the material, and
then they'll clamor for the 'tried and true' performances that contain
that certain 'indescribable' something that was originally 'right', and
will always be the standard.
> That doesn't result in one specific
>performance which is *the* historically correct performance.
No, it's just an offputting attitude (sometimes).
> That means,
>secondly, that within the limits of HIP many different performances are
>possible. For me the main thing is that every interpretation should remain
>within the borders of what is historically justifiable.
I totally agree with that, except when you're trying to recruit new
listeners, which should be most of the time.
> When you use the wrong
>instrument - i.e. an instrument the composer didn't know - it is very likely
>that you "discover" (in fact "invent") things within the music the composer
>couldn't possibly have put in it. When you let the music - and therefore the
>composer - say things they weren't intending to say, you are in fact telling a
>lie.
Now you're going onto thin ice...
> The point is: who *owns* the music, we or the composer himself?
Yup, I thought so!
>I will
>never understand why people consider it to be obvious to respect the
wishes of a
>living composer about the way his music should be performed, and at the same
>time think to have the right to do with music of dead composers whatever they
>like.
If you've ever composed a developed series of works, you know that it's a
process. The composer owns his style, and within limits, his
developmental 'impulse', but he DOESN'T own the process! I can pick up a
score and play it one way and then differently, and then find how the
composer 'wanted it'. And I never feel like I had the process out of
order. The score should be respected, but it shouldn't be left
unexplored.
> HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the composer,
>dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to "early
>music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
Oh no no no! It's much more than that! It's the whole history of music
and the development of the elements of music of the specific period 'come
alive' and 'become justified'!
>For me that is a matter of principle. When being a person who sticks to his
>principles means being seen as close-minded, so be it.
Not at all, but IMO, there are at least two different ways to appreciate music.
Kind regards,
Jerry
A440A
>>Temperaments.
>Is that the meaning of WTC?
I think so. We know what well tempered referred to in 1722, and from the
historical record, it seems that it was nothing at all like our equal
temperament of today.
The 24 demonstrate a lot of things, simultaneously. One of these things is
the manner in which dissonance(tempering) can be used to musical effect.
Tock
>> > Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
>> > not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
>> > performed on harpsichord?
You ain't heard nothin' until you've heard Bach played on a bagpipe and
accordian schleptet . . .
--tock
Johan van Veen
wavelengths. You are obviously concerned about attracting new listeners. That's
fine. But the whole thread started with the question, whether Bach's keyboard music
didn't sound better on a harpsichord than on a piano. I have stated that in my view
that is the wrong question. So for me the topic was: which interpretation does most
justice to his music?
So let me make something clear (again):
1) I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of listening to or playing Bach's
music; as far as I am concerned, you can play it on a musical saw; only: don't
pretend it is the *real* Bach.
2) I was only talking about interpretations on a professional level; when amateurs
want to play Bach on the piano: fine! It is better to play Bach on the piano than
the garbage you hear on most radio stations today!
3) When a player doesn't have the historical information, he is excused for playing
Bach 'the wrong way'; before the Iron Curtain came down, musicians of eastern
Europe didn't have access to the results of musicological research in the West.
4) When you don't have the instruments, players or singers, you have to compromse:
it is better to play Bach with the wrong instruments than not at all. When
Mendelssohn performed Bach's St Matthew Passion, he didn't use a harpsichord or a
viola da gamba; there were no such instruments around anymore, and nobody would
have known how to play them anyway.
5) But: right now every conductor and every player and singer has access to
convincing evidence about the way music was sung and played in Bach's time, and the
ideas behind it. To ignore this evidence deliberately shows a lack of respect for
the composer, his music and his time.
I add some specific points below.
jerry and judy wrote:
When you agree with this very specific statement, I can't see the problem you have
with my earlier message. I very firmly believe that the best way to convince 'new
listeners' that the music of Bach is worth listening to, than you should present
his music with a historically justifiable performance. We shouldn't forget that the
HIP movement in the 60's and 70's has been pushed by mainly young people, and I
know from my own experience that in concerts with HIP performances there are a lot
more young people around than in concerts with traditional performances. The
strength of Bach's music becomes most clear in HIP performances.
But, apart from Bach etc, the whole issue of attracting new listeners to classical
music is a very difficult topic. I don't think anybody has the solution to that
problem.
>
>
> > When you use the wrong
> >instrument - i.e. an instrument the composer didn't know - it is very likely
> >that you "discover" (in fact "invent") things within the music the composer
> >couldn't possibly have put in it. When you let the music - and therefore the
> >composer - say things they weren't intending to say, you are in fact telling a
> >lie.
>
> Now you're going onto thin ice...
>
> > The point is: who *owns* the music, we or the composer himself?
>
> Yup, I thought so!
>
> >I will
> >never understand why people consider it to be obvious to respect the
> wishes of a
> >living composer about the way his music should be performed, and at the same
> >time think to have the right to do with music of dead composers whatever they
> >like.
>
> If you've ever composed a developed series of works, you know that it's a
> process. The composer owns his style, and within limits, his
> developmental 'impulse', but he DOESN'T own the process! I can pick up a
> score and play it one way and then differently, and then find how the
> composer 'wanted it'. And I never feel like I had the process out of
> order. The score should be respected, but it shouldn't be left
> unexplored.
This is a very important aspect of performance practice. You seem to believe, as
some others do, that a composition is in fact never 'finished'. I am very strongly
opposed to that idea. As long as the composer is alive, the composition and
performance process goes on. Bach changed his scores often before performing
earlier pieces again. And Mozart, when travelling through Europe playing his own
music, will not have performed a piece twice exactly the same way. But then we are
talking about the composers themselves. No interpreter can compare himself with
Bach or Mozart. The moment the composer dies, the process stops. No composition has
a spirit of its own, which can develop after the composer has died. For example,
when a director stages a Handel opera on the basis of political ideas of the 20th
century, he abuses Handels music for his own political ideas. When the audience
want to see a link between a Handel opera and a 'modern' political idea, that's up
to them, but you shouldn't put that into Handels music. You can only get something
out of a piece of music when the composer has put it into it.
>
>
> > HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the composer,
> >dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to "early
> >music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
>
> Oh no no no! It's much more than that! It's the whole history of music
> and the development of the elements of music of the specific period 'come
> alive' and 'become justified'!
Right. But taking the history of music and the developments of the elements of
music for the specific period into account *is* a sign of integrity and sincerity.
As I said before: deliberately ignoring that information shows a lack of respect.
What I was intending to say is: performing Boulez' music according to his wishes is
also HIP.
>
>
> >For me that is a matter of principle. When being a person who sticks to his
> >principles means being seen as close-minded, so be it.
>
> Not at all, but IMO, there are at least two different ways to appreciate music.
Indeed, there are; even more than two ways. But we didn't talk about personal
appreciation, which is completely subjective, but about which performance is most
revealing and is doing most justice to a piece of music.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Jerry
Likewise,
shawn
It seems to me that your point of view is artistically stifling at best.
Nobody is arguing in the least against the value of "HIP" (or whatever the
correct acronym is), but the argument that any performance of a piece in a
more modern context or with different instruments is a lie and a disservice
to the composer is absolutely absurd. I imagine that "most" composers would
be delighted to know that their creations have served as the inspirations
for fresh and innovative interpretations, and that they would be excited to
hear their works performed on instruments which they didn't have the
opportunity to witness in their own lifetime.
Your insistence that the artwork should be frozen in time (thrown
screaming into the tomb like some ancient pharaoh's concubine) with the
death of the original artist boggles me. It seems to be wrapped up in your
idea of the composer, rather than the audience, "owning" the music. In
anything but the most technical or legal sense of "copyright", I find the
notion of "ownership" of an aesthetic creation to be quite bizarre. If an
artwork must be "owned", I would argue that upon first public display,
ownership in fact becomes a joint arrangement, including both the artist AND
the audience. I particularly take issue with your insistence that "no
composition has a spirit of its own". It is clear that you give much more
weight in your considerations to the composer than to the work of art
itself, and I can't imagine that many composers THEMSELVES would agree with
you.
The metaphor of the artwork as child to its creator is a cliche to be
sure, yet it still holds true. The creator can mold his artwork in whatever
fashion he chooses, but when he sets it loose upon the world, it does in
fact take on its own development irrespective of the creator's wishes. That
others find meaning in the work which might not have been the conscious
intent of the composer does not automatically discount that meaning from
being valid.
Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:37B28C39...@casema.net...
Richard Carnes
[cut and reformatted into readable line widths]
> But the whole thread started
>with the question, whether Bach's keyboard music didn't sound better
>on a harpsichord than on a piano. I have stated that in my view that
>is the wrong question. So for me the topic was: which interpretation
>does most justice to his music? So let me make something clear
>(again): 1) I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of listening to
>or playing Bach's music; as far as I am concerned, you can play it on
>a musical saw; only: don't pretend it is the *real* Bach. 2) I was
>only talking about interpretations on a professional level; when
>amateurs want to play Bach on the piano: fine! It is better to play
>Bach on the piano than the garbage you hear on most radio stations
>today! 3) When a player doesn't have the historical information, he
>is excused for playing Bach 'the wrong way'; before the Iron Curtain
>came down, musicians of eastern Europe didn't have access to the
>results of musicological research in the West. 4) When you don't have
>the instruments, players or singers, you have to compromse: it is
>better to play Bach with the wrong instruments than not at all. When
>Mendelssohn performed Bach's St Matthew Passion, he didn't use a
>harpsichord or a viola da gamba; there were no such instruments around
>anymore, and nobody would have known how to play them anyway. 5) But:
>right now every conductor and every player and singer has access to
>convincing evidence about the way music was sung and played in Bach's
>time, and the ideas behind it. To ignore this evidence deliberately
>shows a lack of respect for the composer, his music and his time.
True, but an artist who performs Bach on the piano does not need to
disregard the historical evidence. We are talking about a composer
who transcribed a good deal of his own and other composers' music for
other instruments (often with significant recomposition of the piece),
who wrote a good deal of music for "Klavier" without further
specification, who failed to specify a specific instrument for Die
Kunst der Fuge, and who apparently neglected to write letters
expressing his outrage that a piece he had written for clavichord was
being performed on harpsichord, etc.
...
>This is a very important aspect of performance practice. You seem to
>believe, as some others do, that a composition is in fact never
>'finished'. I am very strongly opposed to that idea. As long as the
>composer is alive, the composition and performance process goes
>on. Bach changed his scores often before performing earlier pieces
>again. And Mozart, when travelling through Europe playing his own
>music, will not have performed a piece twice exactly the same way. But
>then we are talking about the composers themselves. No interpreter can
>compare himself with Bach or Mozart. The moment the composer dies, the
>process stops. No composition has a spirit of its own, which can
>develop after the composer has died. For example, when a director
>stages a Handel opera on the basis of political ideas of the 20th
>century, he abuses Handels music for his own political ideas. When the
>audience want to see a link between a Handel opera and a 'modern'
>political idea, that's up to them, but you shouldn't put that into
>Handels music. You can only get something out of a piece of music when
>the composer has put it into it.
Since you apparently believe that a musical composition has a
determinate content, such that certain things are "in" the piece and
other things are not, perhaps you could explain what you believe to be
the content of the C Major Prelude from WTK I. Is it the notes that
Bach wrote in his autograph? A specific pattern of sound waves that
Bach intended? The Auskomponierung of the tonic triad? How can we
tell what is "in" a piece and what is not? I am looking for a
specific methodology rather than generalities.
>> > HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the composer,
>> >dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to "early
>> >music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
OK -- let's say I want to start respecting Bach's wishes. What were
his wishes with respect to performing the WTK on the modern concert
grand in concert halls in the late 20th century?
A larger question is why one ought to regard the composer-performer
relationship as one of master-servant, or boss-employee. (Speaking of
history, in Bach's time it was more likely to be the reverse.) I
would rather say that the relationship is one of collaboration, and we
are all, if not humble servants of our esteemed audiences, at least
servants of the art of music.
Richard Carnes
Johan van Veen
diametrically opposed views on the relationship between a composer and his work,
between the composer and the modern interpreter, and between the music and the
modern interpreter. We both hold different views on these things, and basically
these views are matters of principle, which are very difficult to argue about. I
can't come uo with other arguments to support my views than the ones I have
presented in my earlier message. So, with all respect, I believe we should leave
it there.
Some minor comments are linked to your message.
shawn wrote:
> I'm sorry, I still don't find your argument in the least bit convincing.
> It seems to me that your point of view is artistically stifling at best.
> Nobody is arguing in the least against the value of "HIP" (or whatever the
> correct acronym is), but the argument that any performance of a piece in a
> more modern context or with different instruments is a lie and a disservice
> to the composer is absolutely absurd. I imagine that "most" composers would
> be delighted to know that their creations have served as the inspirations
> for fresh and innovative interpretations, and that they would be excited to
> hear their works performed on instruments which they didn't have the
> opportunity to witness in their own lifetime.
This is a very often used argument which I consider to be complete nonsense.
First of all, you say: I imagine. That is no evidence. Secondly, when new
instruments appeared, the character of the music changed. When the fortepiano
was introduced, composers started to use words like 'piano' and 'forte' in the
scores of their keyboard works, which they hadn't done before. To put it very
simple: when Bach had known the modern concert grand, he would have composed
different music, because he always made use of all possibilities of an
instrument.
The phrase about instruments they didn't have the opportunity to witness in
their own lifetime, suggests that today's instruments are superior to baroque
instruments. I reject that suggestion. They may be more reliable technically,
but they have lost many of the characteristics of early instruments. Modern
instruments are not *better*, but *different*.
>
> Your insistence that the artwork should be frozen in time (thrown
> screaming into the tomb like some ancient pharaoh's concubine) with the
> death of the original artist boggles me. It seems to be wrapped up in your
> idea of the composer, rather than the audience, "owning" the music. In
> anything but the most technical or legal sense of "copyright", I find the
> notion of "ownership" of an aesthetic creation to be quite bizarre. If an
> artwork must be "owned", I would argue that upon first public display,
> ownership in fact becomes a joint arrangement, including both the artist AND
> the audience. I particularly take issue with your insistence that "no
> composition has a spirit of its own". It is clear that you give much more
> weight in your considerations to the composer than to the work of art
> itself, and I can't imagine that many composers THEMSELVES would agree with
> you.
What the composers would have liked is something we will never know. But that
question is probably completely irrelevant. I don't think that Bach would have
imagined that we still would play and sing his music. In his time almost only
contemporary music was performed. Therefore a question like: would Bach have
been a 'HIP-ster' is an anachronistic question, and therefore irrelevant.
>
> The metaphor of the artwork as child to its creator is a cliche to be
> sure, yet it still holds true. The creator can mold his artwork in whatever
> fashion he chooses, but when he sets it loose upon the world, it does in
> fact take on its own development irrespective of the creator's wishes. That
> others find meaning in the work which might not have been the conscious
> intent of the composer does not automatically discount that meaning from
> being valid.
I find your view on a piece of art, in this case a piece of music, a little
bizarre. A composition is not a human being, with a mind and a will of its own.
It doesn't have a spirit. Behind the idea of music continuing to be alive,
independent of the composer, is the idea of artistic evolution, which is also
behind the idea that modern instruments and modern players and singers are
better than their baroque counterparts. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea
of evolution.
When today's interpreter believes he has to add something to the music which the
composer didn't put into it, he in fact thinks he has to *improve* the music.
When the music has to be *improved*, then apparently it isn't good enough as it
is, and then he shouldn't play it at all. And when he thinks that music should
be used to express his own ideas - I used the example of Handel operas abused
for spreading a political message - then he should compose rather than play
someone else's music. It is as Gustav Leonhardt uses to say: the only reason we
are playing music of other people is because we are too stupid to compose.
Johan van Veen
Richard Carnes wrote:
> Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> writes:
>
> [cut and reformatted into readable line widths]
> > But the whole thread started
> >with the question, whether Bach's keyboard music didn't sound better
> >on a harpsichord than on a piano. I have stated that in my view that
> >is the wrong question. So for me the topic was: which interpretation
> >does most justice to his music? So let me make something clear
> >(again): 1) I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of listening to
> >or playing Bach's music; as far as I am concerned, you can play it on
> >a musical saw; only: don't pretend it is the *real* Bach. 2) I was
> >only talking about interpretations on a professional level; when
> >amateurs want to play Bach on the piano: fine! It is better to play
> >Bach on the piano than the garbage you hear on most radio stations
> >today! 3) When a player doesn't have the historical information, he
> >is excused for playing Bach 'the wrong way'; before the Iron Curtain
> >came down, musicians of eastern Europe didn't have access to the
> >results of musicological research in the West. 4) When you don't have
> >the instruments, players or singers, you have to compromse: it is
> >better to play Bach with the wrong instruments than not at all. When
> >Mendelssohn performed Bach's St Matthew Passion, he didn't use a
> >harpsichord or a viola da gamba; there were no such instruments around
> >anymore, and nobody would have known how to play them anyway. 5) But:
> >right now every conductor and every player and singer has access to
> >convincing evidence about the way music was sung and played in Bach's
> >time, and the ideas behind it. To ignore this evidence deliberately
> >shows a lack of respect for the composer, his music and his time.
>
> True, but an artist who performs Bach on the piano does not need to
> disregard the historical evidence. We are talking about a composer
> who transcribed a good deal of his own and other composers' music for
> other instruments (often with significant recomposition of the piece),
> who wrote a good deal of music for "Klavier" without further
> specification, who failed to specify a specific instrument for Die
> Kunst der Fuge, and who apparently neglected to write letters
> expressing his outrage that a piece he had written for clavichord was
> being performed on harpsichord, etc.
You are missing the point. First of all, you talk about arranging. Bach did, and
today's interpreters can arrange Bach's music. But when Glenn Gould played Bach on
the piano, he didn't say he played an arrangement, but he claimed to play Bach. I
am not opposed to playing Bach on the piano, but let nobody pretend he or she is
playing Bach. Every interpretation of Bach's keyboard works on the modern concert
grand is a 20th century arrangement. It reminds us of Bach, but it isn't the real
thing. When I want to hear Bach, I prefer the real thing.
Secondly, when Bach arranged music, he arranged it for instruments which were
different in technical abilities, but very similar in character and style. The
point is that the gap between the harpsichord and the modern concert grand is a lot
wider than between the harpsichord and the 18th century organ or violin. Thirdly,
the fact that the composer arranges his own music doesn't necessarily give us the
right to do the same with music someone else composed. As an old Latin proverb
says: quod licet Iovi non licet bovi (what is allowed to Jupiter isn't allowed to
an ox).
>
>
> ...
> >This is a very important aspect of performance practice. You seem to
> >believe, as some others do, that a composition is in fact never
> >'finished'. I am very strongly opposed to that idea. As long as the
> >composer is alive, the composition and performance process goes
> >on. Bach changed his scores often before performing earlier pieces
> >again. And Mozart, when travelling through Europe playing his own
> >music, will not have performed a piece twice exactly the same way. But
> >then we are talking about the composers themselves. No interpreter can
> >compare himself with Bach or Mozart. The moment the composer dies, the
> >process stops. No composition has a spirit of its own, which can
> >develop after the composer has died. For example, when a director
> >stages a Handel opera on the basis of political ideas of the 20th
> >century, he abuses Handels music for his own political ideas. When the
> >audience want to see a link between a Handel opera and a 'modern'
> >political idea, that's up to them, but you shouldn't put that into
> >Handels music. You can only get something out of a piece of music when
> >the composer has put it into it.
>
> Since you apparently believe that a musical composition has a
> determinate content, such that certain things are "in" the piece and
> other things are not, perhaps you could explain what you believe to be
> the content of the C Major Prelude from WTK I. Is it the notes that
> Bach wrote in his autograph? A specific pattern of sound waves that
> Bach intended? The Auskomponierung of the tonic triad? How can we
> tell what is "in" a piece and what is not? I am looking for a
> specific methodology rather than generalities.
Since I am not a musicologist, but just a music lover, I apologize for not going
into analysing specific compositions. I leave that to people who know more about
that. But the basic principle for musical analysis is that you take into
consideration the contemporary views on beauty, the function of music, the
relationship between words and music, and so on. For example, there is a
fundamental difference in the position of the artist in the 18th and in the19th
century. The romantic composer created Art - with a capital A. The composer in
Bach's time was only a craftsman, like the carpenter and the smith. He created only
'Gebrauchsmusik', music to be used for a specific opportunity. The 19th century
composer composed for the eternity, the 18th century composer only for ...., well,
maybe just next week. I think that Bach would have been very surprised when he
would discover that we are still playing his music. In his time, almost no 'early'
music was performed, mainly contemporary music. And then, the 19th century composer
put his own feelings and ideas into his music; therefore many pieces reflect the
biography of the composer. That whole idea was totally unfamiliar to the baroque:
Bach didn't put his personal emotions into the music, and the things that happened
in his family - for example the premature death of most of his children - isn't
reflected in his music. All these things have to be taken into consideration, when
you are going to analyse Bach's works.
>
>
> >> > HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the composer,
> >> >dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to "early
> >> >music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
> OK -- let's say I want to start respecting Bach's wishes. What were
> his wishes with respect to performing the WTK on the modern concert
> grand in concert halls in the late 20th century?
Since Bach was a composer who was very much aware of the possibilities of the
instruments he composed for - listen to his works for cello solo, an instrument he
probably didn't play himself - he very likely would have composed completely
different music, in which he used all the possibilities of the instrument, for
example the opportunity to play legato all the time, and playing with very strong
dynamic contrasts. But we will never know. Therefore, when we perform his music we
should stick to what we definitely know.
>
>
> A larger question is why one ought to regard the composer-performer
> relationship as one of master-servant, or boss-employee. (Speaking of
> history, in Bach's time it was more likely to be the reverse.) I
> would rather say that the relationship is one of collaboration, and we
> are all, if not humble servants of our esteemed audiences, at least
> servants of the art of music.
I agree: performers are servants of the art of music. And therefore they should
know who is setting the rules: the composer. When we don't want to obey the wishes
of the composer, and think we know better than he, why don't we compose ourselves?
It is as Gustav Leonhardt says: the only reason we are playing music of other
people is that we are too stupid to compose.
A440A
>
>OK -- let's say I want to start respecting Bach's wishes. What were
>his wishes with respect to performing the WTK on the modern concert
>grand in concert halls in the late 20th century?
Greetings,
Well, for starters, one could wish for a well-tempered keyboard, since
that is the central idea behind this work. The differences in instrument are
no greater than the differences in intonation that the vast majority of
performers are suffering.
Robert F
wrote:
> When I want to hear Bach, I prefer the real thing.
Well, you won't ever be able to hear the real thing. There was no
recording equipment in Bach's day. At best you can only hear an
approximation.. Even if you closely approximate the baroque
instruments, the tuning, and original concert halls/churches. Since
Bach is not here to rehearse and conduct it or perform it, by
definition it's already been permuted.
>the fact that the composer arranges his own music doesn't necessarily give us the
>right to do the same with music someone else composed.
I wouldn't have wanted to have been the one to tell the great Leopold
Stokowsky that he had no "right" to arrange Bach's organ works into
acclaimed transcriptions for orchestra and windband. And what about
all the composers who wrote "Variations on a Theme by
such-and-such..."?
> Therefore, when we perform his music we
>should stick to what we definitely know.
I take it you probably didn't care for Walter (Wendy) Carlos' LP in
the late 1960's, "Switched On Bach." I think Bach would have liked
it, and certainly the popularity and attention it brought.
>I agree: performers are servants of the art of music. And therefore they should
>know who is setting the rules: the composer.
Maybe while he/she's alive and in control. But once they're gone,
it's a whole new ballgame!
> When we don't want to obey the wishes
>of the composer, and think we know better than he, why don't we compose ourselves?
I agree that we should all be composed most of the time.
>It is as Gustav Leonhardt says: the only reason we are playing music of other
>people is that we are too stupid to compose.
Even if we were to compose our own masterpiece, then the musicians who
performed it would still be "playing other people's music" and not
their own.
Robert F
(f responding in Email, please remove the term NOJUNK from the Email
address in the header)
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:37B28C39...@casema.net...
> So for me the topic was: which interpretation does most
> justice to his music?
Who knows?
> So let me make something clear (again):
> 1) I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of listening to or playing
Bach's
> music; as far as I am concerned, you can play it on a musical saw; only:
don't
> pretend it is the *real* Bach.
And who, among the living, has heard the *real* Bach?
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Robert F <sawman...@fastlane.net> wrote in message
news:3089813BD1EF2BBF.76BEC708...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:58:54 +0200, Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> > When I want to hear Bach, I prefer the real thing.
>
Yes.
> Even if you closely approximate the baroque
> instruments, the tuning, and original concert halls/churches.
The idea that we can closely approximate the instruments is pretty suspect.
Even the most exigent attempts at recreation today cannot overcome
significant obstacles in accurately reproducing instruments with vibrating
strings made from wood, especially the "set-up" aspects.
> Since
> Bach is not here to rehearse and conduct it or perform it, by
> definition it's already been permuted.
He's not here to _revise_ it, either. I can't imagine Bach staying in one
place for centuries.
> I wouldn't have wanted to have been the one to tell the great Leopold
> Stokowsky that he had no "right" to arrange Bach's organ works
Right. And who's going to give Segovia the bad news.
> I take it you probably didn't care for Walter (Wendy) Carlos' LP in
> the late 1960's, "Switched On Bach." I think Bach would have liked
> it, and certainly the popularity and attention it brought.
Bach was not only a composer and musician, but also a bit of a technophile
as instruments go. Is there a keyboard instrument contemporary with Bach
that he didn't use?
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Greg Presley
Thanks to Mr. Van Veen's strong opinions, this has become a very interesting
thread, because they are stimulating so much opposition. I have to say that I
disagree with his fundamental proposition, that the composer sets down the
"rules" for all time. Any composer who is also a performer, as Bach was, and as
I am, is fully aware that no other performer can recreate the exact intentions
of the composer, just as Shakespeare, as an actor, was fully aware that no
future actor would deliver the line "to be or not to be.." exactly as he
would. It is ludicrous to suggest that knowing the historical instruments and
the stylistic nuances of the Baroque is adequate preparation for exactly
recreating Bach's intentions. Of course, it is important to get close to those
intentions. The music itself often tells the performer that something is wrong.
If it doesn't dance, it doesn't sing - uh oh, something's wrong - got to try a
different tempo, a different articulation, a different phrasing, until it
starts to sound better - until it begins to sound "right". But it is precisely
these elements, the ability of the music to make an audience sing the lines
inwardly, or tap its feet under the chairs as the body tries to dance, that
constitutes the content of the music, in addition to the unique paths the music
takes along the way to make these responses come about in a fresh way. Although
Bach wrote well and idiomatically for almost all the instruments of his day, he
surely was aware that it was his beautiful musical lines, his incredible
understanding of tonality, his unswerving rhythmic drive and vitality, and his
mastery of polyphony that mattered - that created the content of his music -
not the sound of a specific instrument. One of the reasons his music lends
itself so well to transcription, is that all these elements are so strong in
him, and it is these element that have resonated so strongly for performers and
audiences alike in the past 2 centuries. It is indeed Bach, his musical
personality, his creative essence, that we hear in most performances of his
music, whether by harpsichord, piano, guitar, or vibraphone - unless the
performer hasn't done his homework and ignores the clues built into the music
which would lead to its best interpretation. Greg Presley
Frank Eggleston
One of the dangers of departing too far from the written notes (by
adding interpretation, I mean, or even 'agrements', i.e., following
"clues") is that you end up with abortions (IMHO) like Anthony
Newman's "notes inegal" theory in which "everything should be played
as though it were written in thirds" and "no double dotting". As has
been pointed out, just using authentic instruments and "informed"
performance practice and original settings, does not guarantee that
we're getting what Bach intended or even "heard". And all speculation
as to what he would have done if he'd had modern instruments is pretty
useless (even with the example of Frederick's pianofortes). I guess
I'm a radical moderate in these things, who would prefer to hear
harpsichord than piano, and moderate ornamentation rather than heavy.
But there are good piano performances, too. It's just that there are
some pretty unhearable one, too.
Frank E
--
"A paranoid-schizophrenic is a guy who
found out what's going on." --- Burroughs
Frank Eggleston
>
> Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote in message
> news:37B28C39...@casema.net...
> > So for me the topic was: which interpretation does most
> > justice to his music?
>
>
> > So let me make something clear (again):
> > 1) I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of listening to or playing
> Bach's
> > music; as far as I am concerned, you can play it on a musical saw; only:
> don't
> > pretend it is the *real* Bach.
>
>
> Later,
> Andrew Mullhaupt
Judging from her famous comment (to Rosalyn Tureck), Wanda Landowska.
:-)
Carlo Grante
instrument for Bach's music:
"...one which should combine the volume of tone of the organ with
the expressive quality of the clavichord, in due proportion, [that]
could be capable of reproducing the image which dwelt in the master's
imagination when he composed for the clavier. Every one sees at once
that the modern pianoforte is in fact just such an instrument."
Interesting!
CG
Tomas Forkert
the sound of a church organ and was really overwhelmed by the effect!
It's just like a new dimension being added.
Tomas
Richard Carnes
>You are missing the point. First of all, you talk about
>arranging. Bach did, and today's interpreters can arrange Bach's
>music. But when Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano, he didn't say he
>played an arrangement, but he claimed to play Bach. I am not opposed
>to playing Bach on the piano, but let nobody pretend he or she is
>playing Bach. Every interpretation of Bach's keyboard works on the
>modern concert grand is a 20th century arrangement.
Would your objections be met if the programme read as follows?
Partita No. 4 in D Major J.S. Bach, arr. Gould
Glenn Gould, piano
Program Notes: This keyboard suite was probably written for the
harpsichord [etc.]
This is not what is normally meant by an arrangement; ordinarily the
term implies that there has been some significant recomposition of the
original score.
>It reminds us of
>Bach, but it isn't the real thing. When I want to hear Bach, I prefer
>the real thing.
This seems to be the nub of the dispute. It is not clear what is this
"real Bach" you are referring to. This echt Bach apparently resides
somewhere in the composer's intentions. This line of thinking is akin
to what some philosophers call the "Intentional Fallacy." The problem
with referring to the composer's intentions as arbiter of performance
issues is that to a great extent the composer's intentions are unknown
or ill-defined. It is true that we know, or can surmise, certain
intentions that Bach had with regard to the performance of his works,
e.g., concerning the execution of ornaments. But we can only guess as
to what his intentions might have been, for example, with regard to
the performance of his works 250 years after his death on an
instrument essentially unknown to him, or whether he had any such
intentions at all. We don't have precise knowledge of his preferred
tempos or articulations or organ registrations or figured bass
realizations. Most important, we cannot know what Bach intended to
*achieve* by means of his music. Most composers have larger aims than
merely creating certain patterns of sound waves in the air: they want
to create certain feelings or experiences in the listener, or have fun
playing with sounds, or glorify God, or whatever. We cannot know to
what extent Bach would have regarded a piano performance of the WTK in
a modern concert hall as fulfilling his aims when he composed. Even
when we are playing the music of living composers, their wishes can
change, and most composers, so far as I know, *want* performers to
"put stuff in that isn't in the music" to a certain extent -- I doubt
that many composers think of their music as something fixed and
immutable.
For these reasons we cannot simply appeal to Bach's intentions and
wishes as a solution to questions about how to perform his music. We
performers have to make and accept responsibility for our own
aesthetic decisions -- there is no getting around it. It is true that
performing, say, a Prokofiev piano sonata on the harpsichord might be
an absurdity; but so long as the naive are not misled into thinking
that Prokofiev wrote the sonatas for the harpsichord, the justifiable
complaint would be that the result is bad music, not that the
performer has sinned by disregarding Prokofiev's wishes. We perform
Bach on the piano because in our judgment, when it is skillfully done
(and it is hard to do well), the result is good music.
I agree with most of this, but I don't think it answers my question:
if you assert that a musical composition has a certain determinate
content, how can we tell what is truly "in" the music and what is not?
This question has to be answered if you want to claim, say, that
Handel's _Giulio Cesare_ or _Serse_ contain no political ideas, or
none relevant to the 20th century. If the reply is that Handel wasn't
thinking about 20th century fascism or whatever, then we are back to
the morass of the composer's intentions, and we haven't gotten
anywhere.
>Since Bach was a composer who was very much aware of the possibilities
>of the instruments he composed for - listen to his works for cello
>solo, an instrument he probably didn't play himself - he very likely
>would have composed completely different music, in which he used all
>the possibilities of the instrument, for example the opportunity to
>play legato all the time, and playing with very strong dynamic
>contrasts. But we will never know.
Agreed -- he would have written different music for the modern piano.
What we can justifiably conclude from this is that recomposing Bach's
keyboard music for the modern piano is a dangerous business: "He would
have added octaves here, used lotsa pedal there..." As you rightly
point out, he would have written a different piece entirely.
Performers and editors have fallen into this trap when attempting to
rewrite Mozart, for example. But to say that therefore concert
artists should not perform Bach's music on the modern piano is a non
sequitur.
Richard Carnes
Robert F
Carnes) wrote:
>Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> writes:
>
>>You are missing the point. First of all, you talk about
>>arranging. Bach did, and today's interpreters can arrange Bach's
>>music. But when Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano, he didn't say he
>>played an arrangement, but he claimed to play Bach. I am not opposed
>>to playing Bach on the piano, but let nobody pretend he or she is
>>playing Bach. Every interpretation of Bach's keyboard works on the
>>modern concert grand is a 20th century arrangement.
>
>Would your objections be met if the programme read as follows?
>
> Partita No. 4 in D Major J.S. Bach, arr. Gould
> Glenn Gould, piano
> Program Notes: This keyboard suite was probably written for the
> harpsichord [etc.]
>
>This is not what is normally meant by an arrangement; ordinarily the
>term implies that there has been some significant recomposition of the
>original score.
>
In such a case where only the performing instrument has been changed,
I prefer to use the term "adaptation" rather than "arrangement."
i.e., adapted for piano, or adapted for flute, etc.
Robert F
(If responding in Email, please remove the term NOJUNK from the Email address in the header)
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:37B496E2...@casema.net...
>
>: playing Bach on the concert grand is like telling
> pupils in school that Napoleon made a phone call to one of his generals.
The notion that experience of music played on instruments which have more
similarities of construction to those originally used centuries ago is a
closer approximation to the experience of that music is largely illusory.
You can easily prove this. Consider a simple stringed instrument,
manufactured to a much higher standard of precision than was available in
the time of Bach - the 1964 Fender Stratocaster. Only 35 years later, Fender
has made several attempts at reproducing this instrument, going as far as to
bring Abigail Ybarra, (the woman who hand wound the pickups for many years,
including 1964), out of retirement. Although the results are frequently fine
instruments, it is not difficult to hear the difference between an original
1964 and even the most successful of the recreations, despite careful
preparations such as having both guitars strung and set up identically by a
highly experienced guitar technician, and having a professional guitarist
play the guitars as closely as possible. (Yes, I have conducted this, and
other similar experiments.)
With the harpsichord, I find it difficult to believe that there was
originally sufficient control of the string gauge and tension to permit
modern approximation the timbre of the vibrating string with any confidence,
let alone have an idea that the contribution of the soundboard is close,
given the larger seasonal changes of indoor climate centuries ago.
With the concert grand, we can be fairly confident that Bach's reaction
would have been to a new sound; with the attempt to recreate Bach on a
harpsichord, there is a decent risk that Bach's reaction would have been to
a sound he knew only too well and perhaps regarded as a badly prepared or
indifferent instrument, or worse.
> You can't let music say what the composer most definitely didn't want to
say.
Well then make sure not to play it on a harpsichord which would not have
pleased Bach.
Since you really don't know which of today's harpsichords that would be,
better avoid playing Bach on any harpsichords. You probably want to avoid
any other instruments that Bach would have had an opinion about - I guess
you should rule out using any instruments known at the time of Bach. Who's
going to give Yo-Yo Ma the bad news?
I suppose the Hammond B-3 might be far enough from organs or Bach's time,
but to be on the safe side, we should probably restrict modern performances
of Bach to Farfisa Duo Compacts.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Johan van Veen
Richard Carnes wrote:
> Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> writes:
>
> >You are missing the point. First of all, you talk about
> >arranging. Bach did, and today's interpreters can arrange Bach's
> >music. But when Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano, he didn't say he
> >played an arrangement, but he claimed to play Bach. I am not opposed
> >to playing Bach on the piano, but let nobody pretend he or she is
> >playing Bach. Every interpretation of Bach's keyboard works on the
> >modern concert grand is a 20th century arrangement.
>
> Would your objections be met if the programme read as follows?
>
> Partita No. 4 in D Major J.S. Bach, arr. Gould
> Glenn Gould, piano
> Program Notes: This keyboard suite was probably written for the
> harpsichord [etc.]
>
> This is not what is normally meant by an arrangement; ordinarily the
> term implies that there has been some significant recomposition of the
> original score.
You are right: it is not what we usually mean by an arrangement. I understand
the difference: Gould played all the notes Bach had written down, whereas
composers like Liszt and Busoni changed them and added notes of their own. Of
course that makes a difference. I only used the word arrangement in order to
make clear that a performance of music with instruments the composer didn't
know is necessarily violating the character of the piece and in contradiction
to the wishes of the composer.
We may not know everything, but we know quite a lot. Bach's intentions were
those of his time: music was composed and performed, first of all to give
praise to God (not only in religious works - Bach also wrote words like 'Jesu
juva' (Jesus help) and 'Soli Deo gloria' (glory only to God) in "secular"
scores), then to teach and please the player and listener. We always should
realise that there was a unity in culture and therefore in perception, unlike
in our own time. There is no such thing as *the culture of the 90's of the
20th century*; nowadays everyone is living in his own subculture. That is
reflected by contemporary music: everyone has his own style, some compose for
traditional instruments and ensembles, others for electronic instruments and
so on. But there was a great uniformity in perception in the baroque period.
In order to know what the principles behind Bach's compositions were, you
don't necessarily need remarks from the master himself. You can read
contemporary books on esthetics, on the principles of composing and
performing etc. There were no big differences of opinion on these matters.
To some extent we don't know exactly what Bach wanted, but we do know what he
definitely didn't want. For example: playing long legato lines - which is
what the modern concert grand is made for - is against the esthetics of the
baroque period, and therefore against Bach's intentions. I would go even
further: it is wrong to talk about *melody* in the baroque; music consisted
of rhetorical formulas. I would recommend reading a number of articles
Harnoncourt has written about baroque music as based on classical rhetoric.
The baroque instruments are a reflection of that rhetorical principle, the
concert grand is made for producing melodies.
>
>
> For these reasons we cannot simply appeal to Bach's intentions and
> wishes as a solution to questions about how to perform his music. We
> performers have to make and accept responsibility for our own
> aesthetic decisions -- there is no getting around it. It is true that
> performing, say, a Prokofiev piano sonata on the harpsichord might be
> an absurdity; but so long as the naive are not misled into thinking
> that Prokofiev wrote the sonatas for the harpsichord, the justifiable
> complaint would be that the result is bad music, not that the
> performer has sinned by disregarding Prokofiev's wishes. We perform
> Bach on the piano because in our judgment, when it is skillfully done
> (and it is hard to do well), the result is good music.
Playing Bach on the piano is just as anachronistic as playing Prokoviev on a
harpsichord, or playing Brahms' organ music according to the baroque rules on
phrasing and articulation. Being a historian I would like to make a
comparison with history: playing Bach on the concert grand is like telling
pupils in school that Napoleon made a phone call to one of his generals.
>
>
You can't let music say what the composer most definitely didn't want to say.
That is the reason I was referring to the ideas of Bach's time: the political
conception of social revolution or social mobility - moving upwards from one
"class" to another - was totally unfamiliar to the time of Bach and Handel.
So when you use a Handel opera to propagate that political concept, you are
abusing Handels music. By the way, I don't think that Handels operas had any
social or political relevance at all. Opera was mainly entertainment, and
that is how operas were listened to. The opera as a way of spreading a
message comes with Mozart - maybe. Even there we are in danger of making too
much of things like freemasonry in the Zauberflöte etc.
We know quite a lot about Bach's faith and his theological orientation. In
order to perform his cantatas you have to study his theological convictions.
He was an orthodox Lutheran, therefore you have to study the interpretation
of the Bible by Martin Luther. When you base your interpretation of Bach's
cantatas on "modern" biblical interpretations, in which the Bible is not seen
as the Word of God, but as a collection of reflections of people about God,
you abuse his works.
>
>
> >Since Bach was a composer who was very much aware of the possibilities
> >of the instruments he composed for - listen to his works for cello
> >solo, an instrument he probably didn't play himself - he very likely
> >would have composed completely different music, in which he used all
> >the possibilities of the instrument, for example the opportunity to
> >play legato all the time, and playing with very strong dynamic
> >contrasts. But we will never know.
>
> Agreed -- he would have written different music for the modern piano.
> What we can justifiably conclude from this is that recomposing Bach's
> keyboard music for the modern piano is a dangerous business: "He would
> have added octaves here, used lotsa pedal there..." As you rightly
> point out, he would have written a different piece entirely.
> Performers and editors have fallen into this trap when attempting to
> rewrite Mozart, for example. But to say that therefore concert
> artists should not perform Bach's music on the modern piano is a non
> sequitur.
>
> Richard Carnes
--
Shawn
> I don't think continuing this discussion will bring us any closer. We have
> diametrically opposed views on the relationship between a composer and his
work,
> between the composer and the modern interpreter, and between the music and
the
> modern interpreter. We both hold different views on these things, and
basically
> these views are matters of principle, which are very difficult to argue
about. I
have
> presented in my earlier message. So, with all respect, I believe we should
leave
> it there.
Oh, I quite agree - although I'm sure we've both made an attempt to at least
understand the other's argument, it's pretty obvious nobody is about to
switch sides. I apologize if I was a little fervent in my responses to
you - you managed to have struck a nerve. Having said all that, I'd like to
ask you a question, and I ask this not in any attempt to undermine your
position, but rather to try and understand where you are coming from. Do
you compose and/or perform?
Still, I find myself unable to refrain from responding to several of your
latest comments below:
> Some minor comments are linked to your message.
>
> shawn wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, I still don't find your argument in the least bit
convincing.
> > It seems to me that your point of view is artistically stifling at best.
> > Nobody is arguing in the least against the value of "HIP" (or whatever
the
> > correct acronym is), but the argument that any performance of a piece in
a
> > more modern context or with different instruments is a lie and a
disservice
> > to the composer is absolutely absurd. I imagine that "most" composers
would
> > be delighted to know that their creations have served as the
inspirations
> > for fresh and innovative interpretations, and that they would be excited
to
> > hear their works performed on instruments which they didn't have the
> > opportunity to witness in their own lifetime.
>
> This is a very often used argument which I consider to be complete
nonsense.
> First of all, you say: I imagine. That is no evidence.
Of course "I imagine." I bloody well have to seeing as I'm in no position
to ask J.S. Bach himself. I base this supposition on my sense of the
collective opinions of the various artists (musical and otherwise, and
myself included) I've had the fortune to know. Is this a scientific
reconstruction of fact? No, but scarcely less so than any historically
informed performance.
> Secondly, when new
> instruments appeared, the character of the music changed. When the
fortepiano
> was introduced, composers started to use words like 'piano' and 'forte' in
the
> scores of their keyboard works, which they hadn't done before. To put it
very
> simple: when Bach had known the modern concert grand, he would have
composed
> different music, because he always made use of all possibilities of an
> instrument.
And yet still, in Bach especially, there is an undeniable musical logic
which transcends the particular instrument he may have written for. I think
his magnificent counterpoint is a more important (and universal) component
of his music than his admittedly impressive understanding of the idiomatic
strengths of each instrument. If you want to say that straying from the HIP
ideal is "not really Bach", fine, but that's still no reason to stand in the
corner and cry "Sacrilege!" There is still value, often TREMENDOUS value,
in the various artistic permutations based on a particular piece.
> The phrase about instruments they didn't have the opportunity to witness
in
> their own lifetime, suggests that today's instruments are superior to
baroque
> instruments. I reject that suggestion. They may be more reliable
technically,
> but they have lost many of the characteristics of early instruments.
Modern
> instruments are not *better*, but *different*.
You're right to reject this suggestion. You were wrong to infer it. I
didn't come anywhere close to claiming the superiority of modern
instruments. I merely said that most composers would probably welcome the
opportunity to hear their music played on modern (i.e. DIFFERENT, not
necessarily BETTER) instruments. I'm not saying they would necessarily LIKE
the performance on modern instruments, just that they would be curious to
hear the difference, from an artistic standpoint.
The idea of evolution, as it relates to natural selection and the origin of
species and all that jazz, has never been about one species being "better"
than another. It has always been about certain species being more
well-suited to their environment. That said - and DESPITE the ample
evidence that modern performers (at the height of their art) are generally
MORE THOROUGHLY TRAINED and, along with modern instruments, better IN MANY
TECHNICAL RESPECTS than their baroque counterparts - Darwin's evolution is
not quite the same thing as what I mean when I speak of artistic evolution.
The permutation does not replace or supersede the original, it merely serves
to enrich the repertoire.
> When today's interpreter believes he has to add something to the music
which the
> composer didn't put into it, he in fact thinks he has to *improve* the
music.
> When the music has to be *improved*, then apparently it isn't good enough
as it
> is, and then he shouldn't play it at all.
Or maybe today's interpreter is not trying to *improve* the music but
instead is trying to gain fresh insight into the work. Otherwise, why would
he want to perform the piece at all? Why not just throw on his CD of the
generally acknowledged "most historically informed performance" to date and
be done with it? Maybe because the interpreter believes that there are
things of value to be learned in the process of interpretation. Maybe
because he understands that performance is fully one-half of the magical
musical equation. Maybe because he knows that the composer himself is
rarely 100% "done" with the music so much as he abandons it to move on -
thus the preponderance of extant drafts and countless revisions. Maybe
because he knows that the artwork is rarely if ever as set in concrete in
the artist's mind as it is in the audience's; that note-for-note
perfection - and therefore the immutability of the piece - is rarely the
composer's perception of his own creation. Maybe because the interpreter is
awash in adoration of the artwork, as opposed to idolatry of the composer.
And yes, maybe because the interpreter recognizes a *different* (not
necessarily *better*) potential in the music, something that the composer
himself was unaware of or chose not to explore - after all, composers are
neither all-powerful nor all-knowing. But most importantly, maybe the
interpreter understands that his interpretation will not serve to diminish
the original work in any way, but that it will stand on its own merits, to
be cherished or despised as is seen fit.
> And when he thinks that music should
> be used to express his own ideas - I used the example of Handel operas
abused
> for spreading a political message - then he should compose rather than
play
> someone else's music. It is as Gustav Leonhardt used to say: the only
reason we
> are playing music of other people is because we are too stupid to compose.
I agree that the interpreter should not be using someone else's music to
express his *extra-musical* ideas. I, for one, am always skeptical of the
combination of the political with the aesthetic. But the purely *artistic*
interpretation is an elaboration, *not* a misrepresentation.
-shawn
Tom Shaw
abilities to express themselves. Wish I could do that too. FWIW, and
with no desrespect to anybody, it seems clear that Mr. van Veen has the
firmest factual background for his position.
TS
Johan van Veen wrote:
>
> Richard Carnes wrote:
>
> > Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> writes:
> >
snip all
Tom Shaw
TS
Shawn wrote:
(snipped to the bone)
Johann Sebastian Bach
You know nothing of my work.
Ruefully Yours,
J.S. Bach
Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:37B31F59...@casema.net...
H.E. Meyers
of Bach are so wonderful.
shawn wrote in message <37b19...@news.smith.edu>...
>I can't tell whether you are being serious. If so, I think you are being
>incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
>
>> In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
>> interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>
>I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC. While I understand the
value
>of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are welcome as
>well.
>
>>
>>
>> Jarl Sigurd wrote:
>>
>> > Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
>> > not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
>> > performed on harpsichord?
>>
>> right one. You suggest that it matters whether it sounds well on a
>> particular instrument. But that, of course, is very subjective. What
>> sounds right to one listener may sound wrong to another one.
>> The fundamental question is: which factor decides on what instrument a
>> piece should be played? When we believe that everything that sounds well
>> to us, is right, then you can go on and on and on.
>> When, however, you believe that when we listen to Bach's music, we do so
>> because we want to know what he has to say, then the question is another
>> one: on which instrument Bach's ideas do come across best? I think that
>> everyone agrees that the best way to experience what Shakespeare had to
>> say, is to read (or listen to) his works in the language he used, and
>> that in every translation, how excellent it may be, something is lost.
>> It is the same with Bach's music: when you play his music on instruments
>> he didn't know, or didn't like, you don't allow him to say what he wants
>> to tell us. With a performance of harpsichord pieces on the piano, you
>> let the music say things Bach didn't intend to say. In fact that means
>> that you are not really interested in what Bach has to say. And that
>> means that in fact today's interpreter puts himself in the first place,
>> rather than the composer. In my view, that is a deadly sin. The composer
>> should always come first. (I am only talking about professional
>> interpreters of course, not about people enjoying playing Bach on the
>> piano at home.)
>> In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
>> interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>>
H.E. Meyers
temperament envisioned by Bach??? Would this enhance one's playing of the
WTC. Also, wasn't pitch about half a step lower back then?
A440A wrote in message <19990811215508...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>I mentioned
>>>restrictive meantone systems and the circulating, but unequal Well
>>>Temperaments.
>
> and Queen Jean of Creekbend asks:
>>Is that the meaning of WTC?
>
> I think so. We know what well tempered referred to in 1722, and from the
>historical record, it seems that it was nothing at all like our equal
>temperament of today.
> The 24 demonstrate a lot of things, simultaneously. One of these
things is
>the manner in which dissonance(tempering) can be used to musical effect.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Michael Haslam <mike...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37B5FAC6...@popmail.dircon.co.uk...
> My dear master,
>
> When did you learn English?
Probably from his son Johann Christian some time around 1762, .only 12 years
after his death in 1750.
This was a long time before Johann Sebastian Bach expressed his wish not to
have his music played on modern pianos, which came into existence in the
19th century.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Michael Haslam
When did you learn English?
In humble awe,
MJH
H.E. Meyers
different on Bach's harpsichord then today's instrument, should we not tune
our harpsichord's or pianos likewise when playing his music? Did Landowska
do this?
Johan van Veen wrote in message <37B1BFA5...@casema.net>...
>
>
>shawn wrote:
>
>> I can't tell whether you are being serious. If so, I think you are being
>> incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
>>
>> > In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
>> > interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>>
>> I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC. While I understand the
value
>> of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are welcome
as
>> well.
>
>Of course I am serious. Your misunderstanding becomes clear in the last
>sentence: I like a fresh interpretation, as if that is opposed to a
>'historically accurate' performance. Two things: there is no such a thing
as a
>'historically accurate' performance. The terminology used in the newsgroups
is
>'HIP' which means 'historically informed performance'. That means that a
>performer uses the facts we are aware of. That doesn't result in one
specific
>performance which is *the* historically correct performance. That means,
>secondly, that within the limits of HIP many different performances are
>possible. For me the main thing is that every interpretation should remain
>within the borders of what is historically justifiable. When you use the
wrong
>instrument - i.e. an instrument the composer didn't know - it is very
likely
>that you "discover" (in fact "invent") things within the music the composer
>couldn't possibly have put in it. When you let the music - and therefore
the
>composer - say things they weren't intending to say, you are in fact
telling a
>lie. The point is: who *owns* the music, we or the composer himself? I will
>never understand why people consider it to be obvious to respect the wishes
of a
>living composer about the way his music should be performed, and at the
same
>time think to have the right to do with music of dead composers whatever
they
>like. HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the
composer,
>dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to "early
>music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
>For me that is a matter of principle. When being a person who sticks to his
>principles means being seen as close-minded, so be it.
>
H.E. Meyers
leads in Handel's operas?
Johan van Veen wrote in message <37B28C39...@casema.net>...
>> In article <37B1BFA5...@casema.net>, Johan van Veen
>> <jvv...@casema.net> wrote:
>>
>> >shawn wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can't tell whether you are being serious. If so, I think you are
being
>> >> incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
>> >>
>> >> > In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
>> >> > interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>> >>
>> >> I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC. While I understand the
value
>> >> of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are
welcome as
>> >> well.
>> >
>> >Of course I am serious. Your misunderstanding becomes clear in the last
>> >sentence: I like a fresh interpretation, as if that is opposed to a
>> >'historically accurate' performance. Two things: there is no such a
thing as a
>> >'historically accurate' performance. The terminology used in the
newsgroups is
>> >'HIP' which means 'historically informed performance'. That means that a
>> >performer uses the facts we are aware of.
>>
>> But don't you see how limiting that is? Not for me or you, but for the
>> 'great unwashed'. They need to be able to think that music is free
>> expression on the highest plane without a great tether of strict ties to
>> The Past! They'll come around, after they're hooked by the material, and
>> then they'll clamor for the 'tried and true' performances that contain
>> that certain 'indescribable' something that was originally 'right', and
>> will always be the standard.
>>
>> > That doesn't result in one specific
>> >performance which is *the* historically correct performance.
>>
>> No, it's just an offputting attitude (sometimes).
>>
>> > That means,
>> >secondly, that within the limits of HIP many different performances are
>> >possible. For me the main thing is that every interpretation should
remain
>> >within the borders of what is historically justifiable.
>>
>> I totally agree with that, except when you're trying to recruit new
>> listeners, which should be most of the time.
>
>When you agree with this very specific statement, I can't see the problem
you have
>with my earlier message. I very firmly believe that the best way to
convince 'new
>listeners' that the music of Bach is worth listening to, than you should
present
>his music with a historically justifiable performance. We shouldn't forget
that the
>HIP movement in the 60's and 70's has been pushed by mainly young people,
and I
>know from my own experience that in concerts with HIP performances there
are a lot
>more young people around than in concerts with traditional performances.
The
>strength of Bach's music becomes most clear in HIP performances.
>But, apart from Bach etc, the whole issue of attracting new listeners to
classical
>music is a very difficult topic. I don't think anybody has the solution to
that
>problem.
>
>>
>>
>> > When you use the wrong
>> >instrument - i.e. an instrument the composer didn't know - it is very
likely
>> >that you "discover" (in fact "invent") things within the music the
composer
>> >couldn't possibly have put in it. When you let the music - and therefore
the
>> >composer - say things they weren't intending to say, you are in fact
telling a
>> >lie.
>>
>> Now you're going onto thin ice...
>>
>> > The point is: who *owns* the music, we or the composer himself?
>>
>> Yup, I thought so!
>>
>> >I will
>> >never understand why people consider it to be obvious to respect the
>> wishes of a
>> >living composer about the way his music should be performed, and at the
same
>> >time think to have the right to do with music of dead composers whatever
they
>> >like.
>>
>> > HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the
composer,
>> >dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to
"early
>> >music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
>>
>> Oh no no no! It's much more than that! It's the whole history of music
>> and the development of the elements of music of the specific period 'come
>> alive' and 'become justified'!
>
>Right. But taking the history of music and the developments of the elements
of
>music for the specific period into account *is* a sign of integrity and
sincerity.
>As I said before: deliberately ignoring that information shows a lack of
respect.
>What I was intending to say is: performing Boulez' music according to his
wishes is
>also HIP.
>
>>
>>
>> >For me that is a matter of principle. When being a person who sticks to
his
>> >principles means being seen as close-minded, so be it.
>>
>> Not at all, but IMO, there are at least two different ways to appreciate
music.
>
>Indeed, there are; even more than two ways. But we didn't talk about
personal
>appreciation, which is completely subjective, but about which performance
is most
>revealing and is doing most justice to a piece of music.
>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Jerry
>
>Likewise,
>
A440A
>Fascinating. Is it possible to tune a modern piano using the well
>temperament envisioned by Bach??? Would this enhance one's playing of the
>WTC. Also, wasn't pitch about half a step lower back then?
Greetings,
It is very possible to tune the modern pianos in a variety of
temperaments. The programmable tuning machines, coupled with the latest
research, enables a modern piano technician to recreate all the documented
temperaments that have been proposed and used during the instruments history.
Here in Nashville, there are a variety of temperaments being used in my
clientele. From Victorian era temperaments in a local hotel piano bar, to full
Well Temperaments in a recording studio. Most of my customers have already
made the return to more musically oriented tunings, and equal temperament is
coming under serious review.
The WTC, when played on a well tempered keyboard as opposed to an equally
tempered one(these are NOT the same!), shows a new complexity, as the key
signature denotes the amout of dissonance in the tonic thirds, as well as the
degree of purity in the fifths.
There is a lot more in the WTC than fingering patterns. It is a treatise on
the use of tonality that was found in the well tempered keyboards of the time.
This variety of tonality does not exist on the the modern equal temperament.
My website goes into the details.
H.E. Meyers
> Well, for starters, one could wish for a well-tempered keyboard,
since
>that is the central idea behind this work. The differences in instrument
are
>no greater than the differences in intonation that the vast majority of
>performers are suffering.
>
>
>Ed Foote
>Precision Piano Works
>Nashville, Tenn. USA
>http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
>To email me, omit ".omit"
Is it possible to get your piano tuned like Bach's harpsichord in terms of
temperament and pitch? Sounds like a fascinating idea. Are there any
recordings out there using such an instrument?
H.E. Meyers
conservatory trained pianists are unaware of this.
A440A wrote in message <19990814200549...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
A440A
>I dare say that most
>conservatory trained pianists are unaware of this.
Greetings,
Yes, that is exactly right, but changing. The piano techs are getting
involved now. The biggest schools will be the last to embrace a new
temperament approach, but it is about time for them to be shaken up a little.
There are alot of entrenched positions out there, and Academia is full of
them. So is the recording industry. However, piano technicians are becoming
aware of the alternatives and how to select and tune them, and more and more
musicians are hearing the added complexity that a well temperament provides.
Once understood, I don't see many returning to equal tempered keyboards.
Someday, people will look upon the 20th century as an equally tempered
age, struggling to escape the pull of tonality with "intellectual"
explanations. However, it is a movement destined to fail, because there is
something unique offered by pure intervals, and a tuning that has none is
lacking.
Plutarch said, "Music, to create harmony, must investigate discord".
Greg Presley
> Once understood, I don't see many returning to equal tempered keyboards.
> Someday, people will look upon the 20th century as an equally tempered
> age, struggling to escape the pull of tonality with "intellectual"
> explanations. However, it is a movement destined to fail, because there is
> something unique offered by pure intervals, and a tuning that has none is
> lacking.
I can't quite agree with this, since music from the age of Beethoven on was
designed for equal temperment tuning and sounds very odd in Well Tempered. This I
can vouch for, having played a concert of music from all periods on a
well-tempered instrument. I can see that for the musicians of Bach's era, it was
probably exciting to modulate through a range of keys and have a particular
"color" for each key, without getting such ugly out-of-tuneness as one would have
making those modulations in mean-tone tuning. But Debussy or Chopin in
Well-Tempered - uh uh. Once sevenths and ninths are piled on in the harmony, and
whole-tone scales, etc. every complex chord in well-tempered tuning sounds ugly
and out-of-tune. But for Bach, Scarlatti, Mozart, and Haydn, yes, by all means use
well-tempered - it is more historically accurate, and sounds very good. Greg
tgjcj
I play it on the synthesizer!!!!<grin>;)
Andrew P. Mullhaupt <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7os2oa$a...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com...
>
> Jarl Sigurd <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:XVpr3.34527$5r2....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> > Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
> > not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
> > performed on harpsichord?
>
>
> Later,
> Andrew Mullhaupt
>
>
Greg Presley
> >
> > In fact this discussion should be about whether this question is the
>
> > When, however, you believe that when we listen to Bach's music, we do so
> > because we want to know what he has to say, then the question is another
> > one: on which instrument Bach's ideas do come across best? I think that
> > everyone agrees that the best way to experience what Shakespeare had to
> > say, is to read (or listen to) his works in the language he used, and
> > that in every translation, how excellent it may be, something is lost.
> > It is the same with Bach's music: when you play his music on instruments
> > he didn't know, or didn't like, you don't allow him to say what he wants
> > to tell us.
Again, I have to disagree with this premise. There is undeniably beauty in
Shakespeare's own language, which can't be duplicated in translation, but much
of that language is now inaccessible even to us native English speakers. We can
pick up much through context, but there are still gaps in understanding, and
thus a loss of content. We also cannot understand many of the allusions, as they
are specific to the Elizabethan era and the politics of the day, of which none
but historians are aware. Does this mean that Shakespeare is ruined in a modern
performance? Of course not - there is still too much left of the original - the
plot, the profound understanding of human nature, the clever interplay of
characters, the beautiful imagery of the poetry. Most of this survives in
translation as well, just as we enjoy the works of the ancient Greek
playwrights. But the question is, would Shakespeare be offended that his works
were translated and performed in other languages, or in different accents of
English than he had ever encountered? Again, I would say no, based on my
experience of writers and performers. It is sometimes different with creative
people who do not also perform. Since their only mark on the world is contained
within their creative work, they are sometimes restrictive on how they wish that
work to be transmitted through the person who has to realize it. But performers
have the experience of taking someone else's work and realizing it and
interpreting it - so they are very tolerant, within limits, of other performers.
Written music, like plays, is much more complex than a painting. It requires the
input and effort of someone else before it can "exist" in the future. A smart
composer knows he has to let go since his personal existence will end before his
music's. How stupid he would have to be to believe that a person not even born
before his death could see into his mind and get all the collective information
and experience of his lifetime and the knowledge of his ultimate intentions
from a collection of written symbols. I'm not sure that Bach even conceived that
people in the future would enjoy and perform his music, but the fact that he
personally engraved three collections toward the end of his life suggests that
he hoped that they would. I think that what he wanted to tell us was contained
in the notes - not in some "ideal" instrument. Having performed his music on
both harpsichord and piano, I do not feel that my piano performances have
resulted in a terrible betrayal of his ideas, or caused the audience to get a
totally incorrect notion of what his music is about. I try to make the piano
performances reflect the knowledge I have of the sound and qualities of the
harpsichord. I don't try to play Bach like Chopin, merely because I'm on an
instrument that Chopin used, and I really don't believe most serious pianists
do. Those who do, deserve the condemnation you are giving, but the rest of us do
not. Greg
A440A
> Someday, people will look upon the 20th century as an equally tempered
>> age, struggling to escape the pull of tonality with "intellectual"
>> explanations. However, it is a movement destined to fail, because there
>is
>> something unique offered by pure intervals, and a tuning that has none
>is
>> lacking.
Greg responds:
>I can't quite agree with this, since music from the age of Beethoven on
>was designed for equal temperment tuning and sounds very odd in Well Tempered.
I would be interested to know what evidence you base this on. In
particular, where in the history of temperament do you see anyone proposing a
way of tuning equal temperament before 1832? I know there are some quotes by
earlier writers, but no one is able to give instructions for this tuning, and
we have a lot of writings for many of the alternatives.
>This I can vouch for, having played a concert of >music from all periods on a
well-tempered >instrument.
I don't know what temperament you had on there, but this is directly
contridictory to many many customers and artists that are using well tempered
pianos today.
What tuning did you play your concert on?
Kip Williams
...
> True, but an artist who performs Bach on the piano does not need to
> disregard the historical evidence. We are talking about a composer
> who transcribed a good deal of his own and other composers' music for
> other instruments (often with significant recomposition of the piece),
> who wrote a good deal of music for "Klavier" without further
> specification, who failed to specify a specific instrument for Die
> Kunst der Fuge, and who apparently neglected to write letters
> expressing his outrage that a piece he had written for clavichord was
> being performed on harpsichord, etc.
There have been good points on all sides in this discussion, but this
was kind of a tie-breaking reality check for me when I read it. Plus the
fact that Bach got his hands on an early piano at the emperor's house
and, after the manufacturer had grudgingly made changes urged by the
composer, pronounced it okay in some ways.
I used to imagine that if I was good and practiced, I'd get to go to the
Heaven where JS Bach and George Gershwin were jamming with Jimi Hendrix
on some incredible instruments that haven't been invented here yet.
Anyway, my ultimate position is to have it all. Why choose between HIP
and non-HIP performers if they have both made disks I like? I realize
this is like calling for both sides to throw rocks at me, consequently
this is a recorded message, and I am already hiding inside the house.
--
--Kip Williams
(now proudly using SPAMAWAY brand spam block - delete to use)
Kip Williams
...
> Playing Bach on the piano is just as anachronistic as playing Prokoviev on a
> harpsichord, or playing Brahms' organ music according to the baroque rules on
> phrasing and articulation. Being a historian I would like to make a
> comparison with history: playing Bach on the concert grand is like telling
> pupils in school that Napoleon made a phone call to one of his generals.
Here I must find fault with the analogy itself. I think it's more like
calling someone on the telephone and saying "Napoleon said thus and such
to one of his generals..."
And while I have you on the line, I must say it's been a pleasure to
read your posts on this subject. I have never fully resolved the problem
of authenticity and pianos. I respect the former and love the latter.
Seeing it go back and forth is helping my thought processes along. (So
as I said in an earlier post, I am less inclined to choose than I am to
accept the best that both schools have to offer.)
Tom Shaw
saying this, with the ethical and moral tone in America today with
regard to abortion and the similar culture in the Netherlands regarding
euthanasia, there is no good reason not to castrate a few promising boy
sopranos in order to accomplish same.
TS
H.E. Meyers wrote:
>
> Following your logic shouldn't we be using castrati singers for the soprano
> leads in Handel's operas?
>
snip of all the rest
Frank Weston
When we get through here we can go on to decide how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin and just when the 20th Century will end.
No one performance at any time on any instrument is the definitive
performance. Otherwise we'd all have it on CD and give up on music lessons.
No music, interpreted as accurately and authentically as humanly possible
can ever reflect all the ideas that went into it's creation. We live in the
last year (or next to last) of the 20th Century. We can tune harpsichords
or clavichords to authentic pitch and temperament, but we can never live
the lives of the people who listened to Bach's music live. We can read
about what they believed, how they worked and lived, but we can never be
them, and we can never experience Bach's music from their perspective.
Certainly, none of us can ever be Bach, so our understanding of what
intellect went into his music will always be incomplete. Try explaining
RAP to your grandmother if you think this is an invalid concept.
These were god fearing people in the strictest sense of the word. The lived
short, hard lives, they saw their children and wives die young, they lived
in the dark and went hungry. For some of them music must have been and
extremely intense experience, although none of them heard the same music
over and over again as we do. They were capable of creating objects and art
of great beauty through acts of mindless repetition and drudgery that anyone
reading this blather could never undertake or understand. We can never be
them, and we can never get into the mind of Bach, so we can never understand
the music as they did. The only approach left to us is to interpret the
music in the context of our own lives. This is not good or bad, this is the
only option.
A harpsichord reveals a lot about the technical aspects of Bach's music and
is certainly extremely pleasant and satisfying to hear and play, on the
other hand, why not an organ or a clavichord to be truly authentic? Why not
convert to Catholicism, learn German, travel to Germany, live in a mud hut
and walk to mass held in an authentic old church and hear the music on an
authentic old organ? Shun modern medicine, electricity, processed food, the
telephone and the Internet. If you go that far, then you won't be able to
log on and argue, and I will definitely get the last word.
Frank Weston
Johan van Veen
H.E. Meyers wrote:
> Following your logic shouldn't we be using castrati singers for the soprano
> leads in Handel's operas?
Yes, we should, when there were some around. Fortunately, as far as we know
there are no castrati anymore. But there are some male singers who try to
develop a real dramatic soprano voice, which in my view is a very interesting
development, which should be encouraged.
But as I said earlier in this thread, when the instruments - including voices -
you need are not around anymore, you are excused for making a compromise. I
referred to Mendelssohn in his performance of Bach's St Matthew Passion: there
were no violas da gamba or harpsichords available in his time, and in case they
had been available, nobody would have been able to play them. When there is no
harpsichord, you could use the piano. But there are plenty of harpsichords
available right now, so there is no need, and in my view no excuse, to use the
piano.
Johan van Veen
H.E. Meyers wrote:
> You also raise an interesting point. Since pitch and temperament were
> different on Bach's harpsichord then today's instrument, should we not tune
> our harpsichord's or pianos likewise when playing his music? Did Landowska
> do this?
No, I'm pretty sure she didn't, for the simple reason that very little was known
about the differences in pitch and temperament between the 20th and the 18th
century in her days.
And yes, we definitely should. But this is a very difficult subject. And not
everything is known, because during the whole baroque period, composers and
instrument makers experimented with temperaments. As far as pitch is concerned,
that is also very problematic. It is known that in Salzburg in the time of
Mozart, at different places in the city different pitches were used. There are
some general rules for, say, the time of Bach in Germany, or the time of
Couperin in France, but much is still unclear. I'm curious to know what a modern
concert grand would sound like, should it be tuned in unequal temperament.
>
>
> Johan van Veen wrote in message <37B1BFA5...@casema.net>...
> >
> >
> >shawn wrote:
> >
> >> I can't tell whether you are being serious. If so, I think you are being
> >> incredibly close-minded. I take particular issue with the following:
> >>
> >> > In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
> >> > interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
> >>
> >> I, for one, am mainly interested in THE MUSIC. While I understand the
> value
> >> of historically accurate performance, fresh interpretations are welcome
> as
> >> well.
> >
> >Of course I am serious. Your misunderstanding becomes clear in the last
> >sentence: I like a fresh interpretation, as if that is opposed to a
> >'historically accurate' performance. Two things: there is no such a thing
> as a
> >'historically accurate' performance. The terminology used in the newsgroups
> is
> >'HIP' which means 'historically informed performance'. That means that a
> >performer uses the facts we are aware of. That doesn't result in one
> specific
> >performance which is *the* historically correct performance. That means,
> >secondly, that within the limits of HIP many different performances are
> >possible. For me the main thing is that every interpretation should remain
> >within the borders of what is historically justifiable. When you use the
> wrong
> >instrument - i.e. an instrument the composer didn't know - it is very
> likely
> >that you "discover" (in fact "invent") things within the music the composer
> >couldn't possibly have put in it. When you let the music - and therefore
> the
> >composer - say things they weren't intending to say, you are in fact
> telling a
> >lie. The point is: who *owns* the music, we or the composer himself? I will
> >never understand why people consider it to be obvious to respect the wishes
> of a
> >living composer about the way his music should be performed, and at the
> same
> >time think to have the right to do with music of dead composers whatever
> they
> >like. HIP is in fact nothing else than respect for the wishes of the
> composer,
> >dead or alive (it is therefore not something specifically related to "early
> >music") and therefore nothing else than integrity and sincerity.
> >For me that is a matter of principle. When being a person who sticks to his
> >principles means being seen as close-minded, so be it.
> >
> >--
> >Johan van Veen
> >Utrecht (Netherlands)
> >jvv...@casema.net
> >
> >ubi deus ibi pax
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote in message
> >> news:37B0A031...@casema.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Jarl Sigurd wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Is it just me or does the keyboard music of Johann Sebastian Bach
> >> > > not sound quite as good when performed on piano as when it is
> >> > > performed on harpsichord?
> >> >
> >> > In fact this discussion should be about whether this question is the
> >> > right one. You suggest that it matters whether it sounds well on a
> >> > particular instrument. But that, of course, is very subjective. What
> >> > sounds right to one listener may sound wrong to another one.
> >> > The fundamental question is: which factor decides on what instrument a
> >> > piece should be played? When we believe that everything that sounds
> well
> >> > to us, is right, then you can go on and on and on.
> >> > When, however, you believe that when we listen to Bach's music, we do
> so
> >> > because we want to know what he has to say, then the question is
> another
> >> > one: on which instrument Bach's ideas do come across best? I think that
> >> > everyone agrees that the best way to experience what Shakespeare had to
> >> > say, is to read (or listen to) his works in the language he used, and
> >> > that in every translation, how excellent it may be, something is lost.
> >> > It is the same with Bach's music: when you play his music on
> instruments
> >> > he didn't know, or didn't like, you don't allow him to say what he
> wants
> >> > to tell us. With a performance of harpsichord pieces on the piano, you
> >> > let the music say things Bach didn't intend to say. In fact that means
> >> > that you are not really interested in what Bach has to say. And that
> >> > means that in fact today's interpreter puts himself in the first place,
> >> > rather than the composer. In my view, that is a deadly sin. The
> composer
> >> > should always come first. (I am only talking about professional
> >> > interpreters of course, not about people enjoying playing Bach on the
> >> > piano at home.)
> >> > In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
> >> > interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Johan van Veen
Greg Presley wrote:
> > >
> > > In fact this discussion should be about whether this question is the
> >
> > > When, however, you believe that when we listen to Bach's music, we do so
> > > because we want to know what he has to say, then the question is another
> > > one: on which instrument Bach's ideas do come across best? I think that
> > > everyone agrees that the best way to experience what Shakespeare had to
> > > say, is to read (or listen to) his works in the language he used, and
> > > that in every translation, how excellent it may be, something is lost.
> > > It is the same with Bach's music: when you play his music on instruments
> > > he didn't know, or didn't like, you don't allow him to say what he wants
> > > to tell us.
>
You will not be surprised that I don't agree. I would like to refer again to
Shakespeare, or rather his time. Do you think some songs on texts by Shakespeare or
his contemporaries come across well, when using modern pronunciation means, that
words which are supposed to rhyme, don't rhyme anymore? How can an ensemble sing a
song with words like 'love' and 'move' (in one of Dowland's songs) without
Elizabethan pronunciation? You don't need to be an expert on Elizabethan English to
understand, that this can't be what the poet and the composer had in mind. So, one
of the words has to be pronunciated differently. (Most agree, I believe, that 'love'
was pronunciated like 'move' in modern English.)
Generally speaking, I believe the audience should try to go back in time as far as
possible. Nikolaus Harnoncourt has written in one of his essays that the music of
the baroque era wasn't directed at a general audience with no knoweledge of music.
It was - as the title of a number of publications by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach says
- directed at 'Kenner und Liebhaber', people who had a basic understanding of music
and its content. When we talo about historically informed performances, we shouldn't
forget that we need something else as well: a historically informed audience. I
believe that many uninformed people can enjoy Shakespeare or Bach, but will they
really understand everything they have to say. When someone listens to Bach's St
Matthew Passion, and likes it because the music is so beautiful, he misses the
substance of the piece completely. The St Matthew Passion wasn't composed to be
liked, but to remind the audience of their sins and of the need for repentence. When
you don't understand the religious meaning of the work, you don't understand the
work itself.
Greg Fernandez
H.E. Meyers <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:yxnt3.522$wY.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Following your logic shouldn't we be using castrati singers for the
soprano
> leads in Handel's operas?
Ouch! I'd sooner be parted from my head.
"Pops" Haydn
Ethel Jean Saltz
Now isn't this mightily related to jazz?
I'm experimenting with my Yamaha PSR 85. This is not a sophisticated
synthesizer. However, Baroque beat and Rock'n'Roll are very similar.
When I take up digital production at school soon, I'm anxious to see
more about this with sophisticated equipment. Early in Music Theory I
ask the prof about Rock'n'Roll and he said it was Baroque, in a
flippant way and then proceeded to compare the two on the piano.
So I might be programmed thisaway.
Or I might remember all this all wrong.
Oh yes, my Palmer JS Bach book explains that before 1932, we did not
have actual original manuscripts so that's why the normal edited music
sheets including my Mason isn't authentic and there is now such a
thing as documented authentic Bach. So that's why my music sheets
don't agree with the samples I heard on Amazon. So now I've got a more
updated Inventions. Which reads like what I heard played.
Be-ahavah uv-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend
Mac-Niet-Spin-Gal, 390 A.G. (after Galileo/1609)
Worlds Greatest Jewish Thinker - Spinoza-ETHICS
World's Greatest Songs - Psalms in Hebrew
World's Greatest Literature - TaNaK/Old Testament
mailto: nie...@airmail.net
Greg Presley
> ument.
>
> I don't know what temperament you had on there, but this is directly
> contridictory to many many customers and artists that are using well tempered
> pianos today.
> What tuning did you play your concert on?
I'm sorry to distress you, but it was a freshly tuned piano using well-temperament,
by a local tuner (and professor of music at Eastern Washington State University, so
I don't think he is just tuning at random). My program was the Mozart Fantasy in C
minor and the Sonata in C minor, several pieces by Scriabin, the Romanian Dances by
Bartok, the Valses Nobles et Sentimentales by Ravel, and the Chopin Ballade in F
minor. The Mozart was beautiful sounding. Every other piece had many isolated
chords that just sounded bad (slightly to moderately out of tune) to my ears. I'm
sorry that I included Beethoven in my equal temperament constellation if it was not
in use in his time. Now I have to ask you who are the artists and orchestras using
well-tempered tunings today in music covering all eras, and in what public forum
are they expressing their delight with it? (I'm not talking now about Baroque
music specialists). As I said before, it does sound beautiful in the music from the
proper historical era - I just feel that it is not the best temperament for music
from the mid-19th century on. Greg
Greg Presley
> You will not be surprised that I don't agree. I would like to refer again to
> Shakespeare, or rather his time. Do you think some songs on texts by Shakespeare or
> his contemporaries come across well, when using modern pronunciation means, that
> words which are supposed to rhyme, don't rhyme anymore? How can an ensemble sing a
> song with words like 'love' and 'move' (in one of Dowland's songs) without
> Elizabethan pronunciation? You don't need to be an expert on Elizabethan English to
> understand, that this can't be what the poet and the composer had in mind. So, one
> of the words has to be pronunciated differently. (Most agree, I believe, that 'love'
> was pronunciated like 'move' in modern English.)
> Generally speaking, I believe the audience should try to go back in time as far as
> possible. Nikolaus Harnoncourt has written in one of his essays that the music of
> the baroque era wasn't directed at a general audience with no knoweledge of music.
> It was - as the title of a number of publications by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach says
> - directed at 'Kenner und Liebhaber', people who had a basic understanding of music
> and its content.
This is not quite a correct translation of the German. It means the ones who understand
it and the ones who have love for it - these are not automatically the same thing or the
same listeners. Also, I find it very hard to believe the members of the congregation of
St. Thomaskirche in Leipzig were each and every one fully educated and versed in the
intricacies of Baroque musical practice. (were there no bakers, no butchers, no
candlestick makers?) And yet I assume Bach was directing his music at all of them. Of
course, all composers at all times wish for and hope for the listener who is truly
listening and truly following the "thread" of the musical argument. Schumann wrote
extensively about the secret messages contained in his music for the special one(s) in
the audience who had the ears to hear them. Mozart understood very well the difference
between the nobility who snoozed through the quiet arias in his operas and the
cognoscenti who were on the edge of their seats. This is no surprise. But I don't see
how this ties in to your premise that only the harpsichord can communicate the essence
of the music. That notion ties in rather to a very 20th century idea - that the medium
is the message. But that idea is a product of the advertising age. In Bach's time, I
suspect that people thought that the message was the message. When Bach stole violin
concertos by Vivaldi and rewrote them as harpsichord concertos, I don't think he was
thinking that he was violating Vivaldi's musical message - I think he thought that he
was honoring it. And I tend to agree. It does not satisfy me to have you say that that
was ok because both instruments were known to Bach. The instruments differ in every
essential quality, from sustaining power, to the ability to swell and diminish, from the
ability to make a percussive attack, to the ability to make a vibrato. It seems to me
rather, that Bach understood the message of the composer to be contained in the
melodies, the harmonies, the rhythms, and the polyphonic treatment of the musical
ideas.I know that I'm unlikely to be able to convince you, but your arguments so far are
not convincing me either, so I guess we're a bit at a standstill.
> When we talo about historically informed performances, we shouldn't
> forget that we need something else as well: a historically informed audience. I
> believe that many uninformed people can enjoy Shakespeare or Bach, but will they
> really understand everything they have to say. When someone listens to Bach's St
> Matthew Passion, and likes it because the music is so beautiful, he misses the
> substance of the piece completely. The St Matthew Passion wasn't composed to be
> liked, but to remind the audience of their sins and of the need for repentence. When
> you don't understand the religious meaning of the work, you don't understand the
> work itself.
I do agree with this, but certainly with the copious program notes and informal speeches
from the stage giving the historical context of the music, we are doing our best to
approach this aspect of the understanding of the music and its message. Even with this
effort there will alway be many who simply want to close their eyes and dream while the
music plays on. I am not suggesting that they are getting the full impact of the music.
Greg
A440A
I asked Greg,
>I'm sorry to distress you, but it was a freshly tuned piano using
well-temperament,
>by a local tuner (and professor of music at Eastern Washington State
University,
>so
>I don't think he is just tuning at random).
as little more than a glorified plumber or electrician, I have to state that I
have never seen a piano tuned properly by a non-fulltime professional. I have
seen numerous examples of faculty tuning their harpsichords and clavichords,
and usually the temperament is recognizable, but rarely right. The piano, to
be tuned accurately in any temperament requires much more skill. So, I submit
that you may have had a poor tuning. Even if not, the question still
remains, which temperament was in use for your program?
(Ravel would not have worked in anything but ET, I believe)
Greg again,
>Now I have to ask you who are the artists and orchestras
>using
>well-tempered tunings today in music covering all eras, and in what public
>forum
>are they expressing their delight with it?
The most recent has been a Bob Seger recording project here. A very light
well temperament was favored over the best ET I could tune. There were no
problems until he transposed the last song of the week into Ab, at which time
he asked if I could retune it to ET. That Ab then lost its dissonance, but the
remark was that the life went out of the piano when I put it in ET.
All of Steve Earle's recordings for the last three years here have been
done with a Young temperament.
Al Sanderson, inventor of the Accu-tuner, has informed me that an
increasing number of performing artists in the Northeast are now requesting
particular temperaments for their performances, so the movement is growing.
Enid Katahn, who performed the music on "Beethoven In The Temperaments" now
keeps her own pianos in other than ET, and remarked how nice the Debussy,
Chaminade, and others sound.
After hearing her play Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto, the dean of the
Blair School of Music at Vanderbilt sought me out to tell me that he had never
heard the piano speak as well as it did. He was unaware that the temperament
was a Young.
This is not all smoke and mirrors, there is something musicians are finding
very valid and attractive about non ET tuning. I hope you will investigate
further, and perhaps not let a music professor define your attitude about
temperament.
Regards,
Alan Jones
enjoyed for a long time. May I add some random but lengthy notes in response
to what has already been written so well? Though not what you might really
call a pianist, I do own a small modern harpsichord as well as a digital
"piano", and I have wrestled for many years with the question of
"authenticity" in the attempt to conduct more-or-less HIPerformances with
various amateur choirs and chamber orchestras.
So: piano or harpsichord for Bach? And what kind of harpsichord? I have been
historically aware, if not always well-informed, from the time when the
Brandenburgs were still performed by full symphonic forces and the sound of
a harpsicbord was represented on disc by Landowska's massively clangorous
monster, complete (I think?) with a 16' stop and iron frame. Now we have
harpsichords/spinets/virginals and recorders made to reproduce specimens
from particular craftsmen at particular periods. Is it no more acceptable to
play Bach on a "late 18th century harpsichord" than on a "late 18th century
fortepiano", I wonder?
Bach may in fact have preferred the clavichord with its particular
expressive potential, different from those of both harpsichord and piano.
Its "silent sort of sound", as a non-musical acquaintance once described it,
makes it useless for concert performances, but did Bach ever envisage giving
solo recitals in anything like modern circumstances? No HIP can be at all
close to authenticity unless the intended or foreseen acoustic can be
reproduced, together with the physical relationship of performer and
audience.
What about improvisation? Even in Bach, who indicated ornamentation more
liberally than most contemporaries, some must be added in an HIP, the
scholars say - but where, exactly, and what? How is the continuo to be
realised? Currently a rather spare style is fashionable; in the 1970s the
most admired players ran riot with lavish ornamentation and florid
counterpoint. Which is closer to what the master-improvisers Bach and Handel
might have played? Similar fashions may be observed in accompanying
recitative: once (with plenty of authority from near-contemporaries) the
cadential chords followed the last vocal note, now they overlap the singer.
However HI the P, it's hard to see how any modern audience can listen in the
same way as in Bach's time - musically, I mean, as well as in the broader
cultural and religious sense. Even in the street our ears are continually
assailed with everything from Gregorian chant to hip-hop, and Bach's
outrageously audacious chromaticism may still shake and stir our
post-Romantic sensibilities but it cannot *shock* us as it must have done
the burghers of Leipzig. Not even Mr van Veen, I suspect, has authentic
ears.
With so much doubt, and so much reliance on current fashions and the newest
(not necessarily the most reliable) scholarship, must we accordingly refuse
to play and sing Bach and Handel altogether, for fear we are betraying them?
I hope not.
Some opinions which I ask Mr van Veen to reconsider or further justify.
1. Melody - Mr van Veen writes ". . . it is wrong to talk about *melody*
in the baroque; music consisted of rhetorical formulas". What is melody? If
it is tunes, then Bach's music is full of them - the kind the proverbial
butcher's boy can whistle - and he lovingly makes use of other people's
tunes, from chorales to folksong. Most listeners would, I fancy, like them
played as if they were being sung. If this is easier on a piano than a
harpsichord, all well and good (and on a clavichord even more is possible).
2. "The composer in Bach's time was only a craftsman, like the carpenter
and the smith. He created only 'Gebrauchsmusik', music to be used for a
specific opportunity. The 19th century composer composed for the eternity,
the 18th century composer only for ...., well, maybe just next week. I think
that Bach would have been very surprised when he would discover that we are
still playing his music". How can Mr van Veen be so sure? Bach was
classically educated and in fact taught Latin; he must have known the poet
Horace's boast "Exegi monumentum aere perennius" - "I have built [in my
verse] a monument more lasting than bronze". He probably didn't know
Shakespeare's lines "Not marble nor the gilded monuments /Of princes shall
outlive my powerful rhyme", but the sentiment is the same. Does Mr van Veen
think that in the Art Of Fugue or the B Minor Mass Bach was unaware that he
was building monuments, even if To The Greater Glory of God rather than of
J.S.Bach? The homage represented by The Musical Offering or the didactic
function of the 48 could have been equally well served by much briefer and
less exhaustive works. Any utility these works might have had is far
overshadowed by their scale and splendour, and some of them were never
intended for immediate use - what Catholic choir would or could have used
this stupendous mass setting composed by a Lutheran Kapellmeister? Wasn't
the MS of the Brandenburgs found unopened - "maybe next week", indeed!
3. "When the audience want to see a link between a Handel opera and a
'modern' political idea, that's up to them, but you shouldn't put that into
Handels music. You can only get something out of a piece of music when the
composer has put it into it." I don't know which particular production Mr
van Veen has in mind. But I do recall a TV transmission a few years ago from
Glyndebourne Opera of Handel's oratorio "Theodora", set in a fictional
modern dictatorship. Musically the performance was decidedly HIP;
dramatically - in decor, costumes, acting style - it was quite unrelated to
either ancient Rome or Handel's England. But it moved me to tears because it
was emotionally irresistible, and that emotion was aroused by the magical
combination of music and production. Handel's themes are eternal: passion,
persecution, faithfulness unto death . . . and cannot be tied down to a
point in history, but a modern style of production may more strikingly bring
home to us the universal truths within the work.
As to "what the composer has put into" the music, may there not be
profundities he may have felt but has not fully recognised? Was composition
for Bach no more than a technical task of assembling "rhetorical formulas"?
Was he really "only a craftsman"? I can't find the exact reference, but
somewhere the novelist D.H.Lawrence said (or words to this effect) "Trust
the tale and not the teller" and similarly T.S.Eliot and Samuel Beckett
refused to confirm or deny what critics found in their work: if it had been
found, it must be there *for that reader*. And so for music.
4. "It is as Gustav Leonhardt uses to say: the only reason we are playing
music of other people is because we are too stupid to compose." Really? Tell
that to Mendelssohn or Bernstein or Britten or many other composer-pianists
or composer-conductors.
Finally (and I know this has gone on too long already) there is another sort
of authenticity, not necessarily connected with HIP - authenticity of
response. When Handel's "Messiah" had its first full performance in Dublin,
his contralto was an actress of supposedly dubious morals. As she finished
the air "He was despised", one of the clergy, who had thought the notion of
a "Sacred Oratorio" ridiculous and probably blasphemous, leapt to his feet
and cried "Woman, for this thy sins be forgiven thee!" After hearing the
same work, a grandee congratulated Handel on 'the noble entertainment he had
lately given the town' by its first London performance, but '"My Lord", said
Handel, "I should be sorry if I only entertained them, I wish to make them
better."' Does Bach on the harpsichord speak to our very souls more loudly
than on the piano? If you think so, listen to Andras Schiff and think
again - and if you want to share the Dublin cleric's vivid response to
"Messiah", try the HIPerformance by Les Arts Florissants on Harmonia Mundi
CDs.
Alan Jones
H.E. Meyers
a piano tuned in well temperament?
A440A wrote in message <19990816070300...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
A440A
>Mr. Foote, if I am ever in Nashville, do you have a >shop where Ican try out a
piano tuned in well >temperament?
Greetings,
Yes, and if there are none here, there are always numerous ones close by at
customers homes or studios.
Greg Presley
someone other than the only person in this town who claims to do it. It may take
some time before I can find that opportunity. Greg
Johan van Veen
comments to some passages of your message.
Alan Jones wrote:
> This thread has been for me the most interesting and challenging we have
> enjoyed for a long time. May I add some random but lengthy notes in response
> to what has already been written so well? Though not what you might really
> call a pianist, I do own a small modern harpsichord as well as a digital
> "piano", and I have wrestled for many years with the question of
> "authenticity" in the attempt to conduct more-or-less HIPerformances with
> various amateur choirs and chamber orchestras.
>
> So: piano or harpsichord for Bach? And what kind of harpsichord? I have been
> historically aware, if not always well-informed, from the time when the
> Brandenburgs were still performed by full symphonic forces and the sound of
> a harpsicbord was represented on disc by Landowska's massively clangorous
> monster, complete (I think?) with a 16' stop and iron frame. Now we have
> harpsichords/spinets/virginals and recorders made to reproduce specimens
> from particular craftsmen at particular periods. Is it no more acceptable to
> play Bach on a "late 18th century harpsichord" than on a "late 18th century
> fortepiano", I wonder?
I am not in the position to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. I don't
think I ever suggested that, but what I am writing about is which instrument
does most justice to Bach's music.
As far as harpsichord and fortepiano is concerned, the late 18th century
harpsichord - say the instruments made after Bach's death - are not ideally
suited to Bach's music, but acceptable, because not much has changed in
harpsichord building between c1650 and 1800. Some registers were added, and
there were harpsichords with pedals (like the one Haydn possessed towards the
end of the century), but the character of the instrument didn't change
fundamentally. The fortepiano of around 1750 was much closer to the harpsichord
than the 19th century fortepiano, let alone the modern concert grand. That is
one of the reasons many of CPhE Bach's keyboard works can be played on either
the harpsichord or the fortepiano. Playing JS Bach's late keyboard works on a
mid-18th century fortepiano could be an interesting experience.
>
>
> Bach may in fact have preferred the clavichord with its particular
> expressive potential, different from those of both harpsichord and piano.
> Its "silent sort of sound", as a non-musical acquaintance once described it,
> makes it useless for concert performances, but did Bach ever envisage giving
> solo recitals in anything like modern circumstances? No HIP can be at all
> close to authenticity unless the intended or foreseen acoustic can be
> reproduced, together with the physical relationship of performer and
> audience.
You are right in drawing attention to the clavichord. It is a wonderful
instrument, which is attracting much more interest these days. As far as I know
it is not established that Bach did possess a clavichord, but it is very likely.
It was often used as rehearsal instrument for the organ (especially the
pedal-clavichord). And there are some recordings of Bach's keyboard works (like
the WTC) on clavichord, and it works very well.
You are probably right that Bach didn't intend to play his keyboard works in
public. He did perform ensemble music, with the Collegium Musicum, but I doubt
whether he has ever played the WTC or the Art of Fugue in public. His keyboard
works were often intended as study material for his sons and pupils. Very few of
his works have been published, which is also an indication of the fact that
public performance wasn't the first thing in Bach's mind.
You are also right about acoustics. I believe that many HIP concerts are less
than convincing because of the wrong acoustical circumstances. I know that
Gustav Leonhardt refuses to perform Bach's St Matthew Passion in a modern
concert hall, and I think he is right. Bach's keyboard works shouldn't be played
in a large concert hall; they need some intimacy. But performances in too big
halls are the price we pay for the increasing popularity of "early music".
>
>
> What about improvisation? Even in Bach, who indicated ornamentation more
> liberally than most contemporaries, some must be added in an HIP, the
> scholars say - but where, exactly, and what? How is the continuo to be
> realised? Currently a rather spare style is fashionable; in the 1970s the
> most admired players ran riot with lavish ornamentation and florid
> counterpoint. Which is closer to what the master-improvisers Bach and Handel
> might have played? Similar fashions may be observed in accompanying
> recitative: once (with plenty of authority from near-contemporaries) the
> cadential chords followed the last vocal note, now they overlap the singer.
Lately more attention is given to improvisation; two years ago there was a
symposium on that subject in the Utrecht Early Music Festival. It is still
debated how much ornamentation should be added to Bach's music. There is
definitely still a lot to discover and to discuss. But HIP never pretends to
have all the answers, it is mainly about asking the right questions and looking
into the right direction for some answers.
>
>
> However HI the P, it's hard to see how any modern audience can listen in the
> same way as in Bach's time - musically, I mean, as well as in the broader
> cultural and religious sense. Even in the street our ears are continually
> assailed with everything from Gregorian chant to hip-hop, and Bach's
> outrageously audacious chromaticism may still shake and stir our
> post-Romantic sensibilities but it cannot *shock* us as it must have done
> the burghers of Leipzig. Not even Mr van Veen, I suspect, has authentic
> ears.
This is another important point, which I am very interested in. The problem is
that we don't know exactly how the inhabitants of Leipzig experienced Bach's
music, so we don't know how different our experience is with theirs. It is too
simple, though, to say that *we* can't hear as they did - how likely it may seem
- because *we* hear hiphop - I don't even know what it is, and I never listen to
rock music - or because our society and our surroundings are different. To
people who say such things I would like to say: speak for yourself. Nobody has
the same experiences. Maybe I am not part of modern society. I don't listen to
today's popular music, so that can't influence me. And for people who don't have
any religious affiliation it may be difficult to fully understand Bach's
religious music. But a) there are people who share Bach's faith, and b) as I
said earlier in this thread: we need HI performers but also HI audiences. When
you want to fully appreciate music from another time, you should try to learn
something about that time and its music. You can't expect western audiences to
appreciate Chinese music, without any knowledge of Chinese culture and
mentality.
>
>
> With so much doubt, and so much reliance on current fashions and the newest
> (not necessarily the most reliable) scholarship, must we accordingly refuse
> to play and sing Bach and Handel altogether, for fear we are betraying them?
> I hope not.
No, we don't. We should realise that no performance or recording is
"definitive". There will never be an end to the debate about the best
performance. The difference between HIP and the "traditionalists" is that HIP
musicians argue about the best performance and are constantly looking for new
facts, whereas the "traditionalists" are not interested in any answers. HIP is
about the right *attitude*: putting the composer and his work in the centre.
>
>
> Some opinions which I ask Mr van Veen to reconsider or further justify.
>
> 1. Melody - Mr van Veen writes ". . . it is wrong to talk about *melody*
> in the baroque; music consisted of rhetorical formulas". What is melody? If
> it is tunes, then Bach's music is full of them - the kind the proverbial
> butcher's boy can whistle - and he lovingly makes use of other people's
> tunes, from chorales to folksong. Most listeners would, I fancy, like them
> played as if they were being sung. If this is easier on a piano than a
> harpsichord, all well and good (and on a clavichord even more is possible).
Melody is a basically romantic phenomenon: a long legato line, which can easily
be memorized and sung and whistled. They are supposed to be "beautiful" and
pleasant to listen to. Rhetorical formulas are very short, like words in a
language. These forumulas are expressing "affects" (humours), like anger,
sorrow, gladness - but they are not intended to bring the listener into a "good
mood". In the baroque they are "topoi" (commonplaces, in the neutral sense of
the word). All music consisted of these formulas. Composers didn't use a
dictionary to look them up, it was like a second nature to them. They were
thinking in rhetorical formulas like the common man uses his own language
without specific knowledge of grammar. Bach was admired by his contemporaries
for his command of rhetoric. The fact that many modern listeners experience them
as melodies is an indication of the distance between them and Bach. But then we
return to what was said before: we need HI audiences.
And as far as the original topic of this thread is concerned: Bach on the
harpsichord makes these rhetorical formulas better understood (since it is a non
legato instrument) than the modern concert grand (which is made to play legato,
and therefore melodies).
>
>
> 2. "The composer in Bach's time was only a craftsman, like the carpenter
> and the smith. He created only 'Gebrauchsmusik', music to be used for a
> specific opportunity. The 19th century composer composed for the eternity,
> the 18th century composer only for ...., well, maybe just next week. I think
> that Bach would have been very surprised when he would discover that we are
> still playing his music". How can Mr van Veen be so sure? Bach was
> classically educated and in fact taught Latin; he must have known the poet
> Horace's boast "Exegi monumentum aere perennius" - "I have built [in my
> verse] a monument more lasting than bronze". He probably didn't know
> Shakespeare's lines "Not marble nor the gilded monuments /Of princes shall
> outlive my powerful rhyme", but the sentiment is the same. Does Mr van Veen
> think that in the Art Of Fugue or the B Minor Mass Bach was unaware that he
> was building monuments, even if To The Greater Glory of God rather than of
> J.S.Bach? The homage represented by The Musical Offering or the didactic
> function of the 48 could have been equally well served by much briefer and
> less exhaustive works. Any utility these works might have had is far
> overshadowed by their scale and splendour, and some of them were never
> intended for immediate use - what Catholic choir would or could have used
> this stupendous mass setting composed by a Lutheran Kapellmeister? Wasn't
> the MS of the Brandenburgs found unopened - "maybe next week", indeed!
In Bach's days it was very uncommon to play "early music". Yes, some old pieces
were used in liturgy, but when Bach performed cantatas by other composers, they
were mainly contemporaries, like Telemann. "Early music" was not unknown, but
these pieces were studied, not performed. When Mendelssohn performed Bach's St
Matthew Passion, the sensation was not the music itself - others knew that music
already - but that it was performed in public. Joseph Joachim once studied
Mozarts Sinfonia concertante, and wrote that it is a beautiful piece, but of
course totally unsuited to public performance (at least without a proper
arrangement). So when Bach composed his masterpieces, he very likely didn't
expect his music to be performed long after his death (why did he publish so few
of his music?), but probably was hoping later generations would study his music
and learn from it. Because that is exactly what he did with music of previous
generations.
>
>
> 3. "When the audience want to see a link between a Handel opera and a
> 'modern' political idea, that's up to them, but you shouldn't put that into
> Handels music. You can only get something out of a piece of music when the
> composer has put it into it." I don't know which particular production Mr
> van Veen has in mind. But I do recall a TV transmission a few years ago from
> Glyndebourne Opera of Handel's oratorio "Theodora", set in a fictional
> modern dictatorship. Musically the performance was decidedly HIP;
> dramatically - in decor, costumes, acting style - it was quite unrelated to
> either ancient Rome or Handel's England. But it moved me to tears because it
> was emotionally irresistible, and that emotion was aroused by the magical
> combination of music and production. Handel's themes are eternal: passion,
> persecution, faithfulness unto death . . . and cannot be tied down to a
> point in history, but a modern style of production may more strikingly bring
> home to us the universal truths within the work.
You are giving a striking example of the sort of production I am very strongly
opposed to. Everyone in the audience is free to link a Handel opera to political
circumstances in our own time. But to use Handels music to spread a message is
wrong. In the first place it is anachronistic. Historically it is nonsense to
compare a kingdom in ancient history with any modern dictatorship. Being
educated as historian I have very strong reservations towards that approach. But
apart from that, Handels operas - or any baroque opera - don't have any
political relevance - at least not in the modern sense of the word. Operas with
a political message are a phenomenon of the 19th century - like the
nationalistic operas by Weber. Handel doesn't use his operas to spread a message
- and definitely not a message which is totally unfamiliar to 18th century
thinking. Maybe the performance of the music is fine - great! But it still does
Handels music wrong. It shows a lack of respect for the composer.
>
>
> As to "what the composer has put into" the music, may there not be
> profundities he may have felt but has not fully recognised? Was composition
> for Bach no more than a technical task of assembling "rhetorical formulas"?
> Was he really "only a craftsman"? I can't find the exact reference, but
> somewhere the novelist D.H.Lawrence said (or words to this effect) "Trust
> the tale and not the teller" and similarly T.S.Eliot and Samuel Beckett
> refused to confirm or deny what critics found in their work: if it had been
> found, it must be there *for that reader*. And so for music.
This is something which is difficult to argue about. It is mainly a matter of
principle, at least for me. I reject the idea that a work of art has a "mind", a
"spirit" of its own. As soon as the artist has died, the process of composition
stops. A composition is always a reflection of the ideas of the composer and his
time. When someone "discovers" things in a composition, which the composer
couldn't have put into it, he makes it to ventriloquize.
>
>
> 4. "It is as Gustav Leonhardt uses to say: the only reason we are playing
> music of other people is because we are too stupid to compose." Really? Tell
> that to Mendelssohn or Bernstein or Britten or many other composer-pianists
> or composer-conductors.
You have misinterpreted what Leonhardt said. Maybe I haven't explained it
clearly enough. I would like to refer to Harnoncourt again. He asked: why are we
playing "early music" (and in this respect he means "music by dead composers")?
Why don't we only listen to music of our own time, as the people of the 19th
century (as least to a large extent) and previous centuries did? His answer is
that there is a lack of understanding between composers and audience. The
audience is looking for a certain kind of music, and the composers are not able
or not willing to deliver it. Therefore the audience turn to the past. That is
the main characteristic of our time: there is no dominant culture - as existed
in the 18th century - whose moral and esthetic values are shared by everyone:
right now there are only subcultures, in which a small amount of people takes
part. When today's composers and today's audience would be at the same
wavelength, there wouldn't be any need or demand of "early music".
>
>
> Finally (and I know this has gone on too long already) there is another sort
> of authenticity, not necessarily connected with HIP - authenticity of
> response. When Handel's "Messiah" had its first full performance in Dublin,
> his contralto was an actress of supposedly dubious morals. As she finished
> the air "He was despised", one of the clergy, who had thought the notion of
> a "Sacred Oratorio" ridiculous and probably blasphemous, leapt to his feet
> and cried "Woman, for this thy sins be forgiven thee!" After hearing the
> same work, a grandee congratulated Handel on 'the noble entertainment he had
> lately given the town' by its first London performance, but '"My Lord", said
> Handel, "I should be sorry if I only entertained them, I wish to make them
> better."' Does Bach on the harpsichord speak to our very souls more loudly
> than on the piano? If you think so, listen to Andras Schiff and think
> again - and if you want to share the Dublin cleric's vivid response to
> "Messiah", try the HIPerformance by Les Arts Florissants on Harmonia Mundi
> CDs.
Of course, the response of the audience is very important. All music in Bach's
time - not only the religious music - had the aim of glorifying God and
entertain & teach the audience. But the question is: do we respond as the
composer wanted us to? When the only message you take from Messiah or the St
Matthew Passion is that we should treat other people with respect, or that we
should resist injustice, then you take the wrong message. The only right message
to take from these works, is the message the composers wanted to deliver. And I
doubt whether that is the message most people of the end of the 20th century
want to hear...
Frank Weston
This thread has gone on too long without an injection of realism and
sarcasm. You and your buddies have turned it into a competition to see who
can dig up the most pertinent historical tidbits. I say let's start calling
names and maybe use a little of our own imagination and logic. I was
starting to buy your arguments, but then you wrote:
>Maybe I am not part of modern society. I don't listen to
>today's popular music, so that can't influence me.
Yeah, and you don't watch TV, you've never been to a movie, your children
don't own a CD or a radio (or you don't have children). You don't
experience the rhythm of modern life from the hum of transformers to the
clatter of diesel engines to the clicking of a keyboard and the roar of jet
engines. Even if you're Amish and live on a farm, sooner or later you will
be exposed to the sounds and cadences of contemporary existence. The fact
that you exist now is proof that you are influenced. The fact that you can
read this message is proof that you are a part of modern society.
>"traditionalists" are not interested in any answers. HIP is
>about the right *attitude*: putting the composer and his work in the
centre.
There is not a musician worthy of being called a musician, "traditionalist"
or otherwise who is not concerned with the interpretation of the music he
plays. Historically Informed is just another interpretation, no better, no
worse than any other. Only a fanatic is convinced that he knows the "right"
answer to any question (well I do, but the rest of you are fanatics).
>Melody is a basically romantic phenomenon
This is the biggest pile of baloney I have ever had the privlidge to read.
I'm so overwhelmed by the hugeness of incorrectness that I will not even
waste time on an argument, not that there aren't thousands of good points to
make.
>: a long legato line, which can easily
>be memorized and sung and whistled. They are supposed to be "beautiful" and
>pleasant to listen to. Rhetorical formulas are very short, like words in a
>language. These forumulas are expressing "affects" (humours), like anger,
>sorrow, gladness - but they are not intended to bring the listener into a
"good
>mood". In the baroque they are "topoi" (commonplaces, in the neutral sense
of
>the word). All music consisted of these formulas.
The pile grows higher. What do you know about fractals or nucleation
growth phenomena?
>Bach on the
>harpsichord makes these rhetorical formulas better understood (since it is
a non
>legato instrument) than the modern concert grand (which is made to play
legato,
>and therefore melodies).
The harpsichord is perfectly capable of legato, and other instruments of
Bach's time (the organ, the human voice) are far more capable of legato than
the modern piano. The argument that legato playing is a requirement for
melody is interesting, but totally without merit.
>
>You are giving a striking example of the sort of production I am very
strongly
>opposed to. Everyone in the audience is free to link a Handel opera to
political
>circumstances in our own time. But to use Handels music to spread a message
is
>wrong.
Once again, you seem to have the only handle (pun intended) on "right" and
"wrong". It must be wonderful to be so sure.
>apart from that, Handels operas - or any baroque opera - don't have any
>political relevance - at least not in the modern sense of the word.
The relevance is in the interpretation, which is why people pay good money
to hear a talented artist interpret any music. As I have said before, if
there were only one correct interpretation of any music, we would all have
it on CD and be done with it.
> Handel doesn't use his operas to spread a message
>- and definitely not a message which is totally unfamiliar to 18th century
>thinking. Maybe the performance of the music is fine - great! But it still
does
>Handels music wrong. It shows a lack of respect for the composer.
I can't speak for Handel, as Mr. van Veen presumes to do, but I can say that
I would be flattered to think that 300 years after I'm gone anyone would
remember my name, even if they spelled it backwards. How can it be wrong to
give a fine performance of Handel's music in any context (so long as animals
are not harmed in the production)? Mr. van Veen seems to be saying that the
expression of ideas by any means with which he disagrees is wrong. See my
paragraph three above.
>This is something which is difficult to argue about. It is mainly a matter
of
>principle, at least for me. I reject the idea that a work of art has a
"mind", a
>"spirit" of its own. As soon as the artist has died, the process of
composition
>stops. A composition is always a reflection of the ideas of the composer
and his
>time. When someone "discovers" things in a composition, which the composer
>couldn't have put into it, he makes it to ventriloquize.
Isn't art intended to inspire? If the work of a dead composer inspires a
living musician to "discover" something new and interesting, how can that be
wrong? How narrow minded would a composer have to be not to want others to
discover new ideas from the performance of his work? OK, I admit Beethoven
was a little anal.
Hey, there's a lot more I want to argue about, but my mother is calling me
for piano lessons.
Frank Weston - ubi doobi do.
Alan Jones
Mr van Veen kneeling devoutly inside the cage he has constructed from
prejudice, illogicality and literal-mindedness. I will fling one last
quotation at him as I close the door, from a highminded and deeply religious
Englishman, Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think
that ye may be mistaken."
-----------------------
Now to a more practical point: temperament. My Clavinova offers seven
temperaments: Equal, Pure Major, Pure Minor, Pythagorean, Mean Tone,
Werckmeister and Kirnberger. If one selects any but Equal, a "base note" has
to be set. So if I choose C, chords of A flat sound horrible in Mean Tone,
but if I choose A flat, it is the chord of E that is unacceptable. The last
two of the seven are progressively less unequal, but the penalty is that
their "home" chords are noticeably less pure than in Mean Tone.
What I would like to be told is:
1. Which of the six (i.e. excluding Equal) most closely matches any form of
"Well Temperament"?
2. Before the universal use of Equal Temperament, did instruments have to be
re-tuned for each piece to suit its base note? That would be time-consuming
for a harpsichord with perhaps three sets of strings, but what about an
organ with many hundreds of pipes? How did they cope?
3. Perhaps music was made to stay close to home, meaning the "base" key and
three flat or four sharp keys on either side (e.g. the "wolf" only howls -
at least on the Clavinova in Mean Tone with base C - when you get to chords
of A-flat or B). Did composers accept this limitation? Does anyone know a
pre-Bach keyboard piece that occasionally wanders into sourly alien
territory?
Alan Jones
Thomas J. Wood
Johan van Veen wrote:
> In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
> interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>
Ourselves, of course. The composer is dead and cannot care. Therefore, we
perform the music in the way that is most effective for US. Not
surprisingly, the most effective way to perform a piece of music is often
with the instruments and performance styles for which the music was
composed. On the other hand, the music in question might yield wonderful and
surprising results played on instruments and in styles the composer never
imagined. The only bad musical performance is a boring one.
--
Tom Wood
Aris A.
Frank Weston <kla...@annap.infi.net> wrote in message
news:7pc1ec$i63$1...@nw003t.infi.net...
> OK van Veen,
>
> This thread has gone on too long without an injection of realism and
> sarcasm. >
mood]
I have read too much in this thread but I understood too little. I'll try
not to be pompus *but* short and sweet, Laconic. Also I will oversimplify,
knowing the concequences.
In music we have the following:
A: An audience
B: A composer
C: A performer
A. (about the audience). The audience is the receiver of the music.
Everything is made for the sake of the audience. The audience is living
Today. The audience has today's experiences. Almost nobody from the audience
is an informed historian, nobody knows the distant past well, nobody has its
*feeling* although everybody knows about it very roughly. The audience likes
music because it doesn't know why (music is an subconscious experience). The
audience does NOT care about the technical stuff of music, as far as it is
satisfied with the music.
B. (about the composer). The composer is the main source of music. The
composer makes music by giving "shape" to his past experiences. These
experiences have been obtained through his life. The composer lives in a
certain place, a certain time. He expresses *his* era. Composing is a 50%
subconsious work ("inspiration") and 50% technical ability, in order to give
a shape to the product of inspiration. The composer wants his product of
inspiration to be experienced by the audience, that's why he gives a shape
to it. He doesn't care if the shape of his work changes, as far as the
audience understand the inspiration product. Anything done towards better
comprehension of his inspiration product, for the sake of the audience is
good for him.
C. (about the performer). The performer is the communication channel between
the composer and the audience. The performer works together with the
composer. He knows the inspiration product of the composer, he feels it
(subconciously). The performer wants the inspiration product of the composer
to be understood by the audience (as well as the composer wants to). The
performer gives to the composer's work its final shape on stage. The
performer necessarily lives at the same time the audience lives. He knows
his era better than anyone who lived in the past. He knows the audience and
his experiences. He adapts the composer's work according to the audience, in
order to get understood. Anything done towards better comprehension of the
inspiration product of the composer, for the sake of the audience, is good
for him.
Based on the above I think that Bach *must* be played on piano. In fact, I
almost get asleep when I hear Bach on harpsichord, when I am the audience.
I hope that I made myself clear.
Best regards,
Aris Aggelopoulos
Greece
Carl Tait
Johan van Veen <jvv...@casema.net> wrote:
>
>All music in Bach's
>time - not only the religious music - had the aim of glorifying God and
>entertain & teach the audience. But the question is: do we respond as the
>composer wanted us to?
Why does that matter? It may be of interest to know the response that
a composer sought (in the cases where that's possible), but if a listener
derives great pleasure from a work for completely different reasons,
who cares?
It is known that Beethoven *wanted* people to respond much more
strongly to his F-sharp Piano Sonata (Op. 78) than to the Moonlight.
Has posterity somehow betrayed him by overwhelmingly finding the
Moonlight more compelling?
Andres Serrano *wanted* people to see "Piss Christ" (a crucifix in
a jar of urine) as a statement on the debasement of religion by
modern society. Instead, most viewers -- especially religious ones --
were understandably repelled. Were their reactions somehow "wrong"?
>When the only message you take from Messiah or the St
>Matthew Passion is that we should treat other people with respect, or that
>we should resist injustice, then you take the wrong message. The only right
>message to take from these works, is the message the composers wanted to
>deliver.
Again: why? The major message in most religious works is so blatant
that no one could miss it, but this may not be the most *important*
message for listeners who don't share the composer's beliefs. Surely
you don't think a non-Christian listener should say, "Well, since
I don't believe the Jesus business, I should forget all the stuff
about compassion, and probably the music as well."
In secular music, too, there's usually no reason to believe that
a composer was obsessed with projecting a single "right message."
Quite the contrary: great pieces of music will invariably support
multiple interpretations that may differ from each other quite
spectacularly. Jacques Fevrier told an illustrative story about
one of his lessons with Ravel: Fevrier asked -- with considerable
nervousness -- if he might add a certain interpretive nuance not
indicated in Ravel's score. The composer peered at the music
and responded, "Quelle bonne idee [What a good idea]!"
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
jerry and judy
>Johan van Veen wrote:
>
>> In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
>> interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
>>
That can hardly be the fundamental question, because JSB didn't even know
where he came from, in the scientific sense! He had no idea that his
formulations naturally resonated with 15 million years of primate
evolution! How could he? Those resonances hadn't even been 'discovered'
yet.
The reason Bach appeals to us moderns, by way of either most playing
styles and/or most any chosen 'sound' is because he intuitively knew that
the human animal is preoccupied by integer arithmetic (as a survival
advantage) and any genius that can 'develop' simple arithmetic into a new
musical architecture (borrowing from previous historical successes etc.)
can get enough feedback along the way to conceive of a 'work' like the Art
of the Fugue. Well, wait a minute...., this is getting to be even too
much for me, a scientist, to believe!
But Johann did what even the above average musician couldn't do, he went
so far beyond his time's need for musical significance (because of his own
extreme personal search for significance) that he skipped several
generations of musical thought, up to the post-Beethovenian period, IMO.
And that's why JSB speaks to most all of us, without instruction!, even
today!!
Who really knows? for the purposes of this ng?
Jerry5
Margaret Mikulska
> soprano
> > leads in Handel's operas?
>
> Ouch! I'd sooner be parted from my head.
Which may explain the intellectual level of some contributions to this
thread.
-Margaret
Margaret Mikulska
Kip Williams wrote:
> There have been good points on all sides in this discussion, but this
> was kind of a tie-breaking reality check for me when I read it. Plus the
> fact that Bach got his hands on an early piano at the emperor's house
> and, after the manufacturer had grudgingly made changes urged by the
> composer, pronounced it okay in some ways.
I'm not sure why you think that Silbermann made the changes
"grudgingly". On the contrary, as far as we know, it was more of a
cooperation between Bach and Silbermann, and some time later Bach helped
Silbermann sell some of his fortepianos by expressing his approval of
the new instruments (which was more than saying "it's OK in some ways").
(It was at the court of the king of Prussia that Bach encountered
Silbermann's fortepianos.)
> Anyway, my ultimate position is to have it all. Why choose between HIP
> and non-HIP performers if they have both made disks I like?
True. There is no reason to choose, unless one just doesn't like
something.
-Margaret
Margaret Mikulska
rec.music.makers.synth?]
Frank Weston wrote:
> A harpsichord reveals a lot about the technical aspects of Bach's music and
> is certainly extremely pleasant and satisfying to hear and play, on the
> other hand, why not an organ or a clavichord to be truly authentic?
Because while certain works were played on any keyboard instrument,
others were generally played on a specific instrument. A clavichord,
for instance, is suitable only for music played in a small room, for a
very small audience - a few people at the most: its sound is extremely
delicate, which may not be obvious in a recording. Works written for
two manuals and a pedal, for instance, require an instrument with a
pedal keyboard, and that's usually an organ (although not always). From
various historical evidence we can find out in what circumstances a
given work was played, and therefore what instrument(s) should be used
if we want to perform the work in a historically informed manner.
> Why not convert to Catholicism,
Because Bach wasn't Catholic?
> learn German,
That's a great suggestion anyway.
> travel to Germany, live in a mud hut
There weren't many mud huts in 18th-C Leipzig.
> and walk to mass held in an authentic old church and hear the music on an
> authentic old organ?
Good idea.
> Shun modern medicine, electricity, processed food, the
> telephone and the Internet. If you go that far, then you won't be able to
> log on and argue, and I will definitely get the last word.
Amusingly enough, modern technology is of considerable help in
musicological research, including that which underlies the HIP movement.
-Margaret
H.E. Meyers
baroque and early classical music?
Frank Weston wrote in message <7pc1ec$i63$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
Greg Presley
point of view, I have to say that he has stimulated a level of fine writing in
this thread (as we all rush to defend our (mostly) opposing opinions) that makes
me proud of the people who read and contribute to this newsgroup. And that opinion
includes Mr. Van Veen, since it is the strength of his conviction that his opinion
is right which has fueled the outpouring of exciting argumentation. I feel
energized and inspired by the passion and commitment displayed in these posts.
Greg
Johan van Veen
jerry and judy wrote:
> In article <37B9BE68...@uis.edu>, "Thomas J. Wood" <wo...@uis.edu> wrote:
>
> >Johan van Veen wrote:
> >
> >> In the end, the fundamental question is this: who are we mainly
> >> interested in, the composer (and his time) or ourselves?
> >>
>
> That can hardly be the fundamental question, because JSB didn't even know
> where he came from, in the scientific sense! He had no idea that his
> formulations naturally resonated with 15 million years of primate
> evolution! How could he? Those resonances hadn't even been 'discovered'
> yet.
Being an orthodox Lutheran Bach knew exactly where he came from: the first
chapters of the Bible told him. As a more extensive answer would lead us to a
discussion about other things than this newsgroup is about, I only say this: the
idea that life has come into existence by evolution is not a scientific theory but
a faith; a faith I and many other people reject. Your message shows how the
ideology of evolution distorts your view of history.
>
>
> The reason Bach appeals to us moderns, by way of either most playing
> styles and/or most any chosen 'sound' is because he intuitively knew that
> the human animal is preoccupied by integer arithmetic (as a survival
> advantage) and any genius that can 'develop' simple arithmetic into a new
> musical architecture (borrowing from previous historical successes etc.)
> can get enough feedback along the way to conceive of a 'work' like the Art
> of the Fugue. Well, wait a minute...., this is getting to be even too
> much for me, a scientist, to believe!
>
> But Johann did what even the above average musician couldn't do, he went
> so far beyond his time's need for musical significance (because of his own
> extreme personal search for significance) that he skipped several
> generations of musical thought, up to the post-Beethovenian period, IMO.
> And that's why JSB speaks to most all of us, without instruction!, even
> today!!
>
> Who really knows? for the purposes of this ng?
> Jerry5
--
Johan van Veen
to
respond to it extensively. I only add some short comments.
Frank Weston wrote:
> OK van Veen,
>
> This thread has gone on too long without an injection of realism and
> sarcasm. You and your buddies have turned it into a competition to see who
> can dig up the most pertinent historical tidbits. I say let's start calling
> names and maybe use a little of our own imagination and logic. I was
> starting to buy your arguments, but then you wrote:
>
> >Maybe I am not part of modern society. I don't listen to
> >today's popular music, so that can't influence me.
>
> Yeah, and you don't watch TV, you've never been to a movie, your children
> don't own a CD or a radio (or you don't have children). You don't
> experience the rhythm of modern life from the hum of transformers to the
> clatter of diesel engines to the clicking of a keyboard and the roar of jet
> engines. Even if you're Amish and live on a farm, sooner or later you will
> be exposed to the sounds and cadences of contemporary existence. The fact
> that you exist now is proof that you are influenced. The fact that you can
> read this message is proof that you are a part of modern society.
Yes, sure. I said (can't you read?) that I wasn't influenced by modern
popular
music; even as a kid I hated it. The point is that nobody can say in
general
that *we* are influenced by .... whatever. Everyone is influenced by
different
things. But you are only influenced as far as you want to be influenced.
When
you have any personality, you can decide for yourself what things you
want to be
influenced by.
>
>
> >"traditionalists" are not interested in any answers. HIP is
> >about the right *attitude*: putting the composer and his work in the
> centre.
>
> There is not a musician worthy of being called a musician, "traditionalist"
> or otherwise who is not concerned with the interpretation of the music he
> plays. Historically Informed is just another interpretation, no better, no
> worse than any other. Only a fanatic is convinced that he knows the "right"
> answer to any question (well I do, but the rest of you are fanatics).
I haven't heard many debates between "traditionalists" and HIP
supporters. The
former very often refer to their feelings and instincts, or simply say:
we don't
know anything. I don't consider those to be "arguments". A debate only
makes
sense if it is based on facts and logical arguments. You can't debate on
the
basis of subjective feelings.
>
>
> >Melody is a basically romantic phenomenon
>
> This is the biggest pile of baloney I have ever had the privlidge to read.
> I'm so overwhelmed by the hugeness of incorrectness that I will not even
> waste time on an argument, not that there aren't thousands of good points to
> make.
You don't give arguments, so I don't reply. Only this: this view is
supported by
a wealth of evidence. Many books and essays have been written about
these
subjects. I would recommend the essays of Harnoncourt.
I was expressing a principle - as I said before in this thread (you
should know,
if you would have made the effort to read the whole thing), some things
are
difficult to discuss, because there are some principles involved. Yes,
there are
still people around - apparently a very rare phenomenon these days - who
have
principles, and stick to them.
>
>
> >apart from that, Handels operas - or any baroque opera - don't have any
> >political relevance - at least not in the modern sense of the word.
>
> The relevance is in the interpretation, which is why people pay good money
> to hear a talented artist interpret any music. As I have said before, if
> there were only one correct interpretation of any music, we would all have
> it on CD and be done with it.
I specifically denied the existence of *one* correct interpretation.
>
>
> > Handel doesn't use his operas to spread a message
> >- and definitely not a message which is totally unfamiliar to 18th century
> >thinking. Maybe the performance of the music is fine - great! But it still
> does
> >Handels music wrong. It shows a lack of respect for the composer.
>
> I can't speak for Handel, as Mr. van Veen presumes to do, but I can say that
> I would be flattered to think that 300 years after I'm gone anyone would
> remember my name, even if they spelled it backwards. How can it be wrong to
> give a fine performance of Handel's music in any context (so long as animals
> are not harmed in the production)? Mr. van Veen seems to be saying that the
> expression of ideas by any means with which he disagrees is wrong. See my
> paragraph three above.
It has nothing to do with ideas I disagree with (how should you know?).
What I
am opposed to is using other peoples works to spread *your* message.
When you
want to spread a message, compose your own music - as many politically
committed
composers of this century have done.
>
>
> >This is something which is difficult to argue about. It is mainly a matter
> of
> >principle, at least for me. I reject the idea that a work of art has a
> "mind", a
> >"spirit" of its own. As soon as the artist has died, the process of
> composition
> >stops. A composition is always a reflection of the ideas of the composer
> and his
> >time. When someone "discovers" things in a composition, which the composer
> >couldn't have put into it, he makes it to ventriloquize.
>
> Isn't art intended to inspire? If the work of a dead composer inspires a
> living musician to "discover" something new and interesting, how can that be
> wrong? How narrow minded would a composer have to be not to want others to
> discover new ideas from the performance of his work? OK, I admit Beethoven
> was a little anal.
>
> Hey, there's a lot more I want to argue about, but my mother is calling me
> for piano lessons.
>
> Frank Weston - ubi doobi do.
--
Kip Williams
>...the
> idea that life has come into existence by evolution is not a scientific
> theory but a faith; a faith I and many other people reject. Your message
> shows how the ideology of evolution distorts your view of history.
Don't be so hard on evolution. It's what keeps brothers and sisters from
marrying.
--
--Kip Williams
(now proudly using SPAMAWAY brand spam block - delete to use)
Frank Weston
Alan Jones
>Now to a more practical point: temperament. My Clavinova offers seven
>temperaments: Equal, Pure Major, Pure Minor, Pythagorean, Mean Tone,
>Werckmeister and Kirnberger. If one selects any but Equal, a "base note"
has
>to be set. So if I choose C, chords of A flat sound horrible in Mean Tone,
>but if I choose A flat, it is the chord of E that is unacceptable. The last
>two of the seven are progressively less unequal, but the penalty is that
>their "home" chords are noticeably less pure than in Mean Tone.
With Mean Tone you get about 15 workable keys - same as the number of Bach's
Inventions. Hmmmmm? Any chance he had Mean Tone in mind? The tuning
commonly used during Bach's time would have made C the most pure key.
>
>What I would like to be told is:
>
>1. Which of the six (i.e. excluding Equal) most closely matches any form of
>"Well Temperament"?
Werckmeister qualifies.
>
>2. Before the universal use of Equal Temperament, did instruments have to
be
>re-tuned for each piece to suit its base note? That would be time-consuming
>for a harpsichord with perhaps three sets of strings, but what about an
>organ with many hundreds of pipes? How did they cope?
Not at all. A key was chosen because of the "color" it imparted to a
particular piece. Not every key had or was intended to have the same
vanilla flavor as does ET today.
>
>3. Perhaps music was made to stay close to home, meaning the "base" key and
>three flat or four sharp keys on either side (e.g. the "wolf" only howls -
>at least on the Clavinova in Mean Tone with base C - when you get to chords
>of A-flat or B). Did composers accept this limitation? Does anyone know a
>pre-Bach keyboard piece that occasionally wanders into sourly alien
>territory?
Yes, composers accepted this "feature". There are many pieces, both pre and
post Bach that make use of dischord as a "feature" in the music. I leave it
to the musical historians to catalog them.
Frank Weston
Frank Weston
OK. Here's what I think.
Music performed in temperaments other than intended by the composer loses
some of its message. Most Baroque and Classical music was intended for Mean
Tone or Well Temperaments. I personally prefer a Well Temperament, but I've
fallen down in the Pre-Industrial Era and I can't get up.
On the other hand, many musicians and most listeners can't tell WT from ET
without a program. The difference, for the great majority of listeners, is
not cosmic, or even weakly apparent. Same goes for the instrument and the
pitch. It just does not make that big of a difference. What does make a
difference is the talent, the intensity, the insight, the personality, the
emotion and the plain hard work an artist brings to the interpretation of
any music. That is what makes music for me, be it RAP or Rachmaninoff.
Bach on bandsaws could be moving if done properly.
Frank Weston
Frank Weston
Johan van Veen wrote:
Yada, yada, yada..... long snip ........ yada, yada yada.
Johan,
Try to form complete thoughts and keep it short and to the point. Listening
to modern music has caused me to have an extremely short attention span.
Frank Weston
Mark Smythe
Blah blah Blah snipped...
what in the hell are you guys writing about?
Ethel Jean Saltz
wrote:
>2. Before the universal use of Equal Temperament, did instruments have to be
>re-tuned for each piece to suit its base note? That would be time-consuming
>for a harpsichord with perhaps three sets of strings, but what about an
>organ with many hundreds of pipes? How did they cope?
======================
Yes. In fact there were always more than one instrument for this
reason. But back in those days, it was a social event, and extended
with breaks for lunch and dinner.
The piano changed all this.
In fact, my piano tuner told me he was selected to be on standby in
case Van Cliburn broke a spring in his piano. (which has nothing to do
with the subject but could be projected to allow piano tuners to
change the tuning of a piano in a concert, today).
In fact, if we used uprights instead of grand pianos, wouldn't it be
possible to have two pianos on stage with different tunings. Isn't it
the amount of space that the grand piano takes that's limiting all
this?
Will digital pianos eventually compress the space a piano takes and
then we're all back to individual tunings. I don't know much about
digital pianos, but I suspect they use microelectronics to make the
hammers hit? Can hammers hit in such a way, limited contact, to
represent the plucking of the harpsichord?
Will the Grand be replaced by newer technology? Just as the
harpsichord was.
Be-ahavah uv-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend
Mac-Niet-Spin-Gal, 390 A.G. (after Galileo/1609)
Worlds Greatest Jewish Thinker - Spinoza-ETHICS
World's Greatest Songs - Psalms in Hebrew
World's Greatest Literature - TaNaK/Old Testament
mailto: nie...@airmail.net