Dynamics in Bach
Neil Radisch
unchanging during the course of a piece. Yet my version of the English
Suites have very romantic dynamic markings all over the place. Fortes,
pianos, crescendos etc. I can't imagine a harpsichord doing this. What
gives? (I have the Czerny edition published by Schrimer (sp?))
Neil
Marian Russell
My music teacher at university never complained when I put dynamics into
the Bach pieces she gave me for instruction, and I was using the German
Urtext editions of Bach's music with no dynamic markings. I am no
music expert, but I think one should let the emotion and feeling of
music come through as much as possible. There were probably no
dynamics in Baroque harpsichord music because of the limitations of
that instrument. I'm sure if Bach were alive today, he would take
advantage of all of the possibilities available to him on any given
instrument. Listen to the music as you play and figure out, from your
own perception, how it should best be played. Give it your own
interpretation and not necessarily someone else's, unless you like
what they suggest.
Marian Russell
MRus...@sgit.iaea.or.at
Daryel Nance
>Marian Russell
>MRus...@sgit.iaea.or.at
Block dynamics were the answer to creating variety within the
capabilities of the instruments ..much in a similar way that an organist
adds or subtracts stops from one section to another of a piece, so too
listen to a historical recording of the Brandenburg concerti, etc.
Harpsicords have multiple sets of string "stops" that can be added and
subtracted. ie: 8,8,4 or 8,4 w/lute , etc.
In spite of all this, I find taking liberties with history ..most refreshing!
Daryel Nance
dar...@blkbox.com
Martha Beth Lewis
writes:
>My music history books all talk about baroque dynamics as being fairly
>unchanging during the course of a piece. Yet my version of the English
>Suites have very romantic dynamic markings all over the place. Fortes,
>pianos, crescendos etc. I can't imagine a harpsichord doing this. What
>gives? (I have the Czerny edition published by Schrimer (sp?))
>
>
>
Hi, Neil! You've answered your own question. It's editorial garbage
in Schirmer editions. They're uniformly horrid. Please get yourself
an Urtext edition.
You are right, cres. and dec. are impossible on the harpsichord.
Differentiate by articulation, adding or removing a second (third, etc)
set of strings. Arpeggiate chords, add trills, etc. to "increase
volume."
Martha Beth
Sammi Live
: In <3s6b7p$c...@news.panix.com> nrad...@panix.com (Neil Radisch)
: Martha Beth
Martha
I have to agree with you completely about editorial garbage. Schirmir is
awful for gumming up the best music with their own crap that doesn't make
any musical sense.
I do have to disagree with you on one topic though. What Bach didn't
consider when he wrote his music, was that it would one day be played on an
instrument completely different than a harpsichord. I interpret Bach in a
Baroque style yes, BUT, I take Gould's approach to playing the piece. We
have a wonderful instrument included in that unassuming wooden box. Why not
utilize it to its full capacity? Bach shouldn't be played like Hanon
Studies. It becomes boring and monotonous. It is some of the greatest
music ever written and it should be played like it's some of the greatest
music ever written. Without the dynamics, his MUSIC becomes finger
exercises. Interpret Bach like you would for a piece of music. Don't
interpret it as a finger exercise.
Sam Shumka
Martha Beth Lewis
writes:
>I do have to disagree with you on one topic though. What Bach didn't
>consider when he wrote his music, was that it would one day be played
on an
>instrument completely different than a harpsichord. I interpret Bach
in a
>Baroque style yes, BUT, I take Gould's approach to playing the piece.
We
>have a wonderful instrument included in that unassuming wooden box.
Why not
>utilize it to its full capacity? Bach shouldn't be played like Hanon
>Studies. It becomes boring and monotonous. It is some of the
greatest
>music ever written and it should be played like it's some of the
greatest
>music ever written. Without the dynamics, his MUSIC becomes finger
>exercises. Interpret Bach like you would for a piece of music. Don't
>interpret it as a finger exercise.
>
>Sam Shumka
Well, Sam, to each his own. I don't care for Gould's approach, but if
it works for you, go with it!
I don't ever find Bach monotonous or boring. There is too much
structural information there for that! Playing Bach, for me, is
bringing out that structure.
And I do disagree still about adding fortes and pianos to his music.
(Is this what you meant?) I'll stick with my "harpsichord
approach"--not bcs it's "historically correct" but bcs to me it makes
the most musical sense.
Martha Beth
Marian Russell
>And I do disagree still about adding fortes and pianos to his music.
>(Is this what you meant?) I'll stick with my "harpsichord
>approach"--not bcs it's "historically correct" but bcs to me it makes
>the most musical sense.
Not all piano teachers would agree with you, Martha Beth. I've
appreciated many of the other things that you have written about piano
playing, but I have to disagree with you here. I've been following this
thread for awhile, waiting for my piano to be delivered. Now that it is
here and I've been able to practice again, I've noticed where my
university piano teacher wrote in dynamic markings in my Urtext editions
of Bach preludes, fugues, and two and three-part inventions, so I wasn't
just imagining that she was encouraging me to be expressive with his
music. I can't imagine playing his music without pianos and fortes!
Like I said before, I'm sure if Bach were alive today he would take
advantage of all of the expressive capabilities of any given instrument.
Marian Russell
MRus...@sgit.iaea.or.at
Marian Russell
>>And I do disagree still about adding fortes and pianos to his music.
>>(Is this what you meant?) I'll stick with my "harpsichord
>>approach"--not bcs it's "historically correct" but bcs to me it makes
>>the most musical sense.
Marian Russell answered:
>> music. I can't imagine playing his music without pianos and fortes!
>> Like I said before, I'm sure if Bach were alive today he would take
>> advantage of all of the expressive capabilities of any given >> instrument.
mpel...@eciad.bc.ca () wrote:
>Now, not that I'm taking sides with MB, I'm just interested in why you
>can't imagine Bach NOT using f to p dynamics. Bach was creative, true,
>but there are lots of things he didn't include into his works, most
>likely by his choice. If he were around today, I could see him writing
>new music for our new pianos, but I can't see why he would change what >he had already written... Don't you think?
> -marc
>PS: I do not play Bach without dynamics personaly!
Who can really answer this? I would say because the emotion and the
feeling are in the music. Because the f's and the p's are there if
you really listen. Some of his music is just so sublime I get
goosebumps when I play it. We could only know for sure if we could
hear Bach play a modern piano and that is impossible. He was such
a musical genius. Maybe to him the dynamics were understood?
Gotta go, but interesting discussion which I would like to continue
later.
Marian Russell
MRus...@sgit.iaea.or.at
Kristin Jordheim
I like to see my Bach music without dymanic markings. After I know the
piece really well, I think about Johann Sebastian and his life, his family,
his strong Lutheran heritage and dynamics come out of my own emotions -
differently each time. This is how I personally enjoy playing Bach. I
have German musician that played and composed with Bach, so I try to
musically transport myself back and feel their times and musicality.
A little partial to Bach perhaps? I just love him.
mpel...@eciad.bc.ca
: >(Is this what you meant?) I'll stick with my "harpsichord
: >approach"--not bcs it's "historically correct" but bcs to me it makes
: >the most musical sense.
[Snip]
: music. I can't imagine playing his music without pianos and fortes!
: Like I said before, I'm sure if Bach were alive today he would take
: advantage of all of the expressive capabilities of any given instrument.
: Marian Russell
Chris Winkler
For playing dynamics in Bach, I think you can take a lesson from music that
Bach wrote for mediums that did have dynamics, for example chamber orchestra.
The dynamics for these works were in general terraced, meaning either p or f.
There were not broad sweeping gradations as in romantic music, nor were there pp or ff.
This can also be seen with the Italian Concerto which Bach did write dynamics
for. The dynamics are in general p or f and many people say these are indications
for using different harpsichord manuals to provide the change in dynamics.
The lack of dynamics should not be confused with a lack of phrasing. Whatever
dynamic level you are playing at within the terrace you must have phrase direction
otherwise your music will truly become flat.
Chris
Martha Beth Lewis
In <3u2klm$n...@nesirs01.iaea.or.at> Marian Russell
>>(Is this what you meant?) I'll stick with my "harpsichord
>>approach"--not bcs it's "historically correct" but bcs to me it makes
>>the most musical sense.
>
I know that; but many do!
I've >appreciated many of the other things that you have written about
piano>playing, but I have to disagree with you here. I've been
following this >thread for awhile, waiting for my piano to be
delivered. Now that it is >here and I've been able to practice again,
I've noticed where my>university piano teacher wrote in dynamic
markings in my Urtext editions >of Bach preludes, fugues, and two and
three-part inventions, so I wasn't >just imagining that she was
encouraging me to be expressive with his >music. I can't imagine
playing his music without pianos and fortes!
I certainly laud expressiveness in music. I just don't think
doing so in Bach with dynamic changes is the way to do it.
Like I said before, I'm sure if Bach were alive today he would take
>advantage of all of the expressive capabilities of any given
instrument.
Marion, a lot of bad Bach playing is a result of those editions
with yellow covers; these display excrable scholarship; and the
company displayed excrable stubbornness in not correcting the
errors (2 generations of musicologists have written to them
to complain and beg that problems be fixed); I'll chalk it up
to economics of fixing the printing plates.
Many teachers--esp professors now in univ. positions--these are
people of my generation, I must add--grew up on these yellow-
cover editions and editions prepared by people who were influenced
by them. I remember being introduced to the inventions in such
an edition and found them absolutely AWFUL music. I declared I
would never play Bach again. This, to tell you my own introduction
to Bach.
I base my opinions on (1) having studied (and performed) most of
Bach's keyboard literature, including a great preponderance of
the organ literature; and what I haven't studied I have
played through with reasonable attention to detail; (2) having
sung a great deal of Bach's choral music (motets, cantatas,
passions, "oratorios", and masses); (3) years of teaching Bach and
thus examining it even more closely in order to explain it to
students rather than rely on my intuition (as I often do when I
am playing for myself); (4) my training as a musicologist (one
of my specialties is performance practice); (5) my study and
performance of a great deal of other baroque literature, both
keyboard, ensemble, and vocal.
In the end, one must rely on one's background, training, and
general musicianship to make interpretation decisions. You must
do as you see fit when you play. After all, music is such a
personal expression that it is impossible--and probably not
desirable--for two people to have the same interpretation.
Thank you for your kind remarks about my posts here
and for your contributions to this discussion.
Martha Beth
Jeff Harrington
1. It is physically impossible to play a Bach keyboard piece on a piano
without dynamic attenuation.
2. Since these pieces must be well-phrased (and MB agrees) in order
to be beautiful, and proper phrasing implies a curve of dynamics,
phrasing Bach by default on a piano implies dynamic changes.
3. Since dynamic changes are inevitable, to be appropriate they have to
be well-considered and this means studying the melodic processes and
creating an appropriate and dramatic dynamic structure.
4. Therefore Bach's keyboard pieces when played on a piano must have
dynamic fluctuations. This doesn't mean there has to be a Romantic style
of great dynamic changes, just that such changes are inevitable and
should be well-considered and appropriate.
Just the $.02 from another piano-playin' Bach-lover.
--
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*) Most Beautiful Site on the Net: Net in Arcadia http://www.parnasse.com/(*)
(*) Elsie Russell's Pics! Jeff Harrington's Music ->>>> Art + The Bizarre (*)
(*) Jeff's Musical WWW Site->>>> http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm (*)
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV - All Days But Thursdays(ABC) on CBS Since 1984 (*)
Martha Beth Lewis
writes:
>phrasing Bach by default on a piano implies dynamic changes.
Hmmm. Don't agree here. Proper phrasing does not necessitate
a change in dynamics. On the piano, if we take the romantic
literature (Beethoven and on) as a model, yes, phrases are
shaped with dynamics as well as other musical devices. But
if we take the harpsichord and music of Bach as the model,
then, no, I disagree. Phrases are deliniated by lifts between
them.
>
>3. Since dynamic changes are inevitable,
From here on, Jeff, we disagree bcs of #2.
to be appropriate they have to
>be well-considered and this means studying the melodic processes and
>creating an appropriate and dramatic dynamic structure.
I think this is splendidly true for romantic literature and
beyond.
>
>4. Therefore Bach's keyboard pieces when played on a piano must have
>dynamic fluctuations.
Sorry. Just don't agree here.
Hmmmm. Wait. Are you talking about gradations in dynamics?
Or are you talking only changes to loud and soft? If the former
then I continue to hold that gradations of dynamics are not
appropriate in Bach's keyboard music. If you are talking the
latter, then I agree: terraced dynamics are the way to go.
Note, tho, that most people--when they talk about dynamics--
are speaking of gradations.
Martha Beth
Jeff Harrington
: writes:
: >proper phrasing implies a curve of dynamics,
: >phrasing Bach by default on a piano implies dynamic changes.
: Hmmm. Don't agree here. Proper phrasing does not necessitate
: a change in dynamics. On the piano, if we take the romantic
: literature (Beethoven and on) as a model, yes, phrases are
: shaped with dynamics as well as other musical devices. But
: if we take the harpsichord and music of Bach as the model,
: then, no, I disagree. Phrases are deliniated by lifts between
: them.
Martha Beth! We're not talking about phrasing on a harpsichord. We're
specifically talking about phrasing on a piano. As I said earlier,
dynamic attenuation is a given in piano performance. To attempt to deny
it is frankly a quite radical approach to musical performance, even in
case of the performance of music which *may* have been written without
dynamic attenuation in mind.
Doesn't replicating harpsichord performance practices on an instrument
with the amazing dynamic range of a piano seem a little weird? Is this
really boiling down to a historical performance tradition argument?
Why play the pieces at all on a piano if you're not going to attempt to
phrase them pianistically? Why attempt to replicate a harpsichord
performance tradition on an historically inappropriate instrument?
: >
: >3. Since dynamic changes are inevitable,
: From here on, Jeff, we disagree bcs of #2.
: >to be appropriate they have to
: >be well-considered and this means studying the melodic processes and
: >creating an appropriate and dramatic dynamic structure.
: I think this is splendidly true for romantic literature and
: beyond.
: >
: >4. Therefore Bach's keyboard pieces when played on a piano must have
: >dynamic fluctuations.
: Sorry. Just don't agree here.
: Hmmmm. Wait. Are you talking about gradations in dynamics?
Absolutely. Again, it's physically impossible, unless you're using a
computer and a MIDI instrument to have a performance which is perfectly
even dynamically. And it is downright un-pianistic to phrase with the
technique of harpsichordist's.
: Or are you talking only changes to loud and soft? If the former
: then I continue to hold that gradations of dynamics are not
: appropriate in Bach's keyboard music. If you are talking the
: latter, then I agree: terraced dynamics are the way to go.
: Note, tho, that most people--when they talk about dynamics--
: are speaking of gradations.
Martha Beth, how do you phrase a melody on an instrument which has such a
fluid dynamic range without resorting to even minor dynamic
fluctuations? You would attempt to create a Brandenburgian dynamic
strata without the master's notations of such while denying the inherent
dynamism of the instrument. All this, in the name of historical
accuracy. We no longer live in the Baroque era. We have a literature of
music which is a living entity, not a frozen fixed record like a CD
recording. Why should we deny it basic dynamic life? Because it's the
right thing to do? Because it might sound better? I doubt the latter...
How would you stratify the C Major Prelude from Book I? Please don't
tell me you'd attempt to play the whole thing mezzo-piano. That would
put me to sleep!
This seems rather bizarre to me; maybe your organ playing years have
"not-so-well-tempered" your aproach to dynamics in Bach?
;-)
mpel...@eciad.bc.ca
: Mary Beth wrote:
: >>And I do disagree still about adding fortes and pianos to his music.
: >>(Is this what you meant?) I'll stick with my "harpsichord
: >>approach"--not bcs it's "historically correct" but bcs to me it makes
: >>the most musical sense.
: Marian Russell answered:
: >> music. I can't imagine playing his music without pianos and fortes!
: >> Like I said before, I'm sure if Bach were alive today he would take
: >> advantage of all of the expressive capabilities of any given >> instrument.
: mpel...@eciad.bc.ca () wrote:
: >Now, not that I'm taking sides with MB, I'm just interested in why you
: >can't imagine Bach NOT using f to p dynamics. Bach was creative, true,
: >but there are lots of things he didn't include into his works, most
: >likely by his choice. If he were around today, I could see him writing
: >new music for our new pianos, but I can't see why he would change what >he had already written... Don't you think?
: > -marc
: >PS: I do not play Bach without dynamics personaly!
:
: Who can really answer this? I would say because the emotion and the
: feeling are in the music. Because the f's and the p's are there if
: you really listen. Some of his music is just so sublime I get
: goosebumps when I play it. We could only know for sure if we could
: hear Bach play a modern piano and that is impossible. He was such
: a musical genius. Maybe to him the dynamics were understood?
: Gotta go, but interesting discussion which I would like to continue
: later.
Hi Marian Russell,
I think the problem lies in that fact the we can make dynamics with the
piano that Bach probably could not with his period instruments. There is
a tendancy to want to use this 'power' and it's often abused. Further
when palying his music, I personally feel that a harmony here or a
harmony there can be better brought out by stress. However the fact
reamins, no one know if this is what Bach would have wanted. All I can
say is that such decisions are for the musican to make (it's in the job
description) and one way is not more correct than the other because no
one can really say for sure what Bach was doing or what he wanted.
-marc
Marian Russell
>I think the problem lies in that fact the we can make dynamics with the
>piano that Bach probably could not with his period instruments. There
I'm not sure I agree that it's an abuse of power to use the full
capabilities of the piano to express Bach's music. I feel that as
musicians we should (and do) have the freedom to interpret music which
has been written by others, including Bach and Beethoven and Mozart and
Haydn. Other musicians can (and will) disagree with our interpretations
and choose to play the same pieces of music differently. I think what
makes performers and conductors unique and popular is their ability to
hear and express something new or unique. Compare Ravel conducting
Ravel's Bolero with Bernstein conducting Ravel's Bolero with the London
Philharmonic Orchestra. Personally, I like Bernstein's rendition better,
even though I love Ravel's music and admire him greatly. This may not
be the best example, but it's the only one I can think of right now.
>Further when playing his music, I personally feel that a harmony here
>or a harmony there can be better brought out by stress. However the
>fact remains, no one know if this is what Bach would have wanted. All
>I can say is that such decisions are for the musican to make (it's in
>the job description) and one way is not more correct than the other
>because no one can really say for sure what Bach was doing or what he
>wanted.
I agree with you. I guess what I was trying to say to Mary Beth earlier
was that _I_ dont think it's wrong to be expressive when playing Bach's
music and for me, I can't imagine playing without any dynamics. But I
feel that if his music sounds more beautiful to her with the minimum of
dynamics then that's how she should play it.
I was looking last night in my Wiener Urtext edition of little preludes
and fugues. The piece in e minor in the third set, number 6, is an easy
example of where I think dynamics can be applied. In the second part
of it there is an ascending scale in the left hand which _I_ think is
especially beautiful when played from p to f and back to p when it
descends. The whole piece can be played with a lot of feeling.
Marian Russell
MRus...@sgit.iaea.or.at
Martha Beth Lewis
In <3u471j$h...@male.EBay.Sun.COM> cwin...@neat.ebay.sun.com (Chris
Winkler) writes:
>
>
>For playing dynamics in Bach, I think you can take a lesson from music
that>Bach wrote for mediums that did have dynamics, for example chamber
orchestra.
Yes; and this is one of the primary arguments used by those who
favor dynamics in Bach's keyboard music.
>The dynamics for these works were in general terraced, meaning either
p or f.
Absolutely. And these were obtained on the harpsichord by use
of different manuals, each with different dispositions.
Terraced dynamic idea lived on in the classical period, in which
you find "echos"--the same motif or phrase repeated and to be
played p.
many people say these are indications
>for using different harpsichord manuals to provide the change in
dynamics.
And failing to have a 2-manual instrument, the thing to do is
to thicken the texture during the f sections and thin it for
the p sections. If you look at the piece, you will see that
Bach did this.
Martha Beth
Martha Beth Lewis
writes:
>Martha Beth Lewis (mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <DBq00...@dorsai.org> idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff
Harrington)
>: writes:
>: >proper phrasing implies a curve of dynamics,
>: >phrasing Bach by default on a piano implies dynamic changes.
>
>: Hmmm. Don't agree here. Proper phrasing does not necessitate
>: a change in dynamics. On the piano, if we take the romantic
>: literature (Beethoven and on) as a model, yes, phrases are
>: shaped with dynamics as well as other musical devices. But
>: if we take the harpsichord and music of Bach as the model,
>: then, no, I disagree. Phrases are deliniated by lifts between
>: them.
>
>Martha Beth! We're not talking about phrasing on a harpsichord.
We're >specifically talking about phrasing on a piano.
Yes, but the phrases are shaped as they are bcs they were written
for the harpsichord! Shaped and structured.
As I said earlier,
>dynamic attenuation is a given in piano performance.
Tone decay, you mean? Of course, it's inherent in any instrument.
To attempt to deny
>it is frankly a quite radical approach to musical performance, even in
>case of the performance of music which *may* have been written without
>dynamic attenuation in mind.
If you mean tone decay, yes, I most emphatically say that Bach's
keyboard (non-organ) music was written -precisely- to solve
this problem (quick tone decay in the harpsichord).
>
>Doesn't replicating harpsichord performance practices on an instrument
>with the amazing dynamic range of a piano seem a little weird?
No, not at all. Anyway, I think the music is more important than
the piano's capabilities. Just because I have 72 spices in my
cabinet does not mean I use them all--or even more than 1 or 2--
when I make beef stew. Just bcs the piano can make dynamic
gradations does not mean I have to incorporate them into all the
music I play. I choose not to incorporate them into Bach.
>Why play the pieces at all on a piano if you're not going to attempt
to >phrase them pianistically? Why attempt to replicate a harpsichord
>performance tradition on an historically inappropriate instrument?
You play them bcs they're GREAT music. I'm not advocating that
my students replicate a harpsichord when practicing on their
home instruments. I am teaching them that the way the harpsichord
produces and sustains sound--and the kind of sound that is--is
fundamental to the way Bach wrote his keyboard music. And it's
necessary to examine the music from this point of view.
Certainly, if one doesn't agree, then one should not play this
way (or teach this way).
>Martha Beth, how do you phrase a melody on an instrument which has
such a >fluid dynamic range without resorting to even minor dynamic
>fluctuations?
You lost me here, Jeff. Please restate.
You would attempt to create a Brandenburgian dynamic
>strata without the master's notations of such while denying the
inherent >dynamism of the instrument. All this, in the name of
historical >accuracy.
I'm not with you here, either.
We no longer live in the Baroque era. We have a literature of music
which is a living entity, not a frozen fixed record like a CD
>recording.
You're right. We no longer live in the baroque. But the music
of the baroque was created in era of the baroque, so it seems to
me that we must make an attempt to understand the musical
traditions (and antecendents) of that era in order to better
understand the heritage we have been left. Similarly, I look
at the music of Mozart, Haydn, Clementi, and Beethoven and I
see so many elements that are clearly brought from the baroque.
Why should we deny it basic dynamic life? Because it's the right
thing to do? Because it might sound better? I doubt the latter...
????
>
>How would you stratify the C Major Prelude from Book I? Please don't
>tell me you'd attempt to play the whole thing mezzo-piano. That would
>put me to sleep!
Would it put you to sleep at mf?! As to stratification, I really
only hear one stratum in this prelude. This one is very atypical,
in my opinion. As to dynamic level on the harpsichord, it would be
whatever the harpsichord could give me. On the piano, I play
it about mf. I think that Bach meant for this piece to be a
"sea" of sound and a kaleidoscope of harmonic changes--some
subtle, some not--not a melody and accompaniment or an
imitative piece.
>
>This seems rather bizarre to me; maybe your organ playing years have
>"not-so-well-tempered" your aproach to dynamics in Bach?
To each his own, Jeff. Thanks for your comments. Martha Beth
Lynwood F. Bronson
Beth Lewis) writes:
>
> You play them bcs they're GREAT music. I'm not advocating that
> my students replicate a harpsichord when practicing on their
> home instruments. I am teaching them that the way the harpsichord
> produces and sustains sound--and the kind of sound that is--is
> fundamental to the way Bach wrote his keyboard music. And it's
> necessary to examine the music from this point of view.
Marbeth, Jeff has many valid points. If we are playing Bach on the
piano, there are places where terrace dynamics are appropriate, and
then there are places where the shaping of the phrase demands dynamic
fluctuations which were not possible on the harpsichord.
A good example is the slow movement of the Italian Concerto. This
movement is not particularly successful on the harpsichord, precisely
because there are so many places where the rising line demands a
crescendo, and places where the falling line demands a diminuendo. I
believe that Bach must have felt frustration at the imperfections of
the harpsichord as a musical instrument, not only in aria-like slow
movements as in the Italian Concerto, but also in contrapuntal keyboard
music, where the piano has a decided edge in delineating important
lines buried in inner voices.
There is a greater issue here. Bach was not fussy about what
instruments played what. He constantly borrowed works composed for
other instruments (some from his own pen and many from other composers)
and arranged them for keyboard. He transcribed not only string works
for keyboard but also wind instruments (i.e. Marcello's oboe concerto).
He wasn't concerned for auhenticity, nor for the stylistic concerns
inherent to particular instruments.
You are absolutely right that we must understand the stylistic
implications of an 18th century score, but if we play a Bach keyboard
work on the piano, we need to realize it in a way that makes the work
true to its inherent style, but permits it to be effective and
meaningful in terms of the instrument on which it is played.
One of the greatest performances I have ever heard was Lukas Foss
playing the D Minor Concerto (on piano) with a small twelve piece
string orchestra. I have heard some great harpsichord performances of
the same work, but nothing that approaches the Foss performance. When I
hear it on the harpsichord, I am always aware of the deficiencies in
the instrument itself.
In the early 1950's as the Baroque revival really got under way, there
were potent forces in academia urging that 18th century keyboard music
be realized only on period instruments. Perhaps we owe the late Glenn
Gould a great debt for making it acceptable once again to play Bach on
the piano.
I am expecting to receive a barrage of flaming on this, but let it
come. A little controversy is a good thing.
Respectfully submitted.
Lyn Bronson
Carmel, CA
Martha Beth Lewis
F. Bronson ) writes:
>
>In <3u9hvn$s...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> mar...@ix.netcom.com (Martha
>Beth Lewis) writes:
>
>
>
>>
>
>> my students replicate a harpsichord when practicing on their
>> home instruments. I am teaching them that the way the
harpsichord
>> produces and sustains sound--and the kind of sound that is--is
>> fundamental to the way Bach wrote his keyboard music. And it's
>> necessary to examine the music from this point of view.
>
>piano, there are places where terrace dynamics are appropriate, and
>then there are places where the shaping of the phrase demands dynamic
>fluctuations which were not possible on the harpsichord.
Lyn, good to hear from you. Are you sure the music -demands- it?
And that it's not just conditioning to the Mannheim rocket? If
the music demands it, how did Bach carry it off?
>
>A good example is the slow movement of the Italian Concerto. This
>movement is not particularly successful on the harpsichord, precisely
>because there are so many places where the rising line demands a
>crescendo, and places where the falling line demands a diminuendo.
Hmmmm. Never really considered this as unsuccessful.
I
>believe that Bach must have felt frustration at the imperfections of
>the harpsichord as a musical instrument, not only in aria-like slow
>movements as in the Italian Concerto, but also in contrapuntal
keyboard
>music, where the piano has a decided edge in delineating important
>lines buried in inner voices.
My point, Lyn, is that there are other ways of bringing out
the counterpoint, not just banging away with one voice louder
than the others. This is done with articulations. It is
so frustrating for -me- not to be able to demonstrate what I
am trying to say with words!! We need MIDI capability here!
>
>There is a greater issue here. Bach was not fussy about what
>instruments played what. He constantly borrowed works composed for
>other instruments (some from his own pen and many from other
composers)
>and arranged them for keyboard. He transcribed not only string works
>for keyboard but also wind instruments (i.e. Marcello's oboe
concerto).
Absolutely true. His organ concerti are transcribed from Vivaldi,
for example. "Borrowing" wasn't considered such a heinous crime
back then, either. Handel borrowed shamelessly; I can't remember
which movements from "Messiah" were borrowed from others. And
then Handel took stuff from "M" and used is in string and oboe
sonatas.
>He wasn't concerned for auhenticity, nor for the stylistic concerns
>inherent to particular instruments.
Do you mean he wrote the music as he wanted it and it was up
to the player to figure out how to produce it? If so, yes, I
heartily agree.
>
>You are absolutely right that we must understand the stylistic
>implications of an 18th century score, but if we play a Bach keyboard
>work on the piano, we need to realize it in a way that makes the work
>true to its inherent style,
yes yes
but permits it to be effective and
>meaningful in terms of the instrument on which it is played.
This is always a matter of taste. I guess that is what we're
really arguing here! I think it's not good musical taste to
put in crescendos and decrescendos. Others do.
>I am expecting to receive a barrage of flaming on this,
On another NG, maybe. But not here!
Jeff Harrington
: writes:
: >
: >Martha Beth Lewis (mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <DBq00...@dorsai.org> idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff
: Harrington)
: >: writes:
: >: >proper phrasing implies a curve of dynamics,
: >: >phrasing Bach by default on a piano implies dynamic changes.
: >
: >: Hmmm. Don't agree here. Proper phrasing does not necessitate
: >: a change in dynamics. On the piano, if we take the romantic
: >: literature (Beethoven and on) as a model, yes, phrases are
: >: shaped with dynamics as well as other musical devices. But
: >: if we take the harpsichord and music of Bach as the model,
: >: then, no, I disagree. Phrases are deliniated by lifts between
: >: them.
: >
: >Martha Beth! We're not talking about phrasing on a harpsichord.
: We're >specifically talking about phrasing on a piano.
: Yes, but the phrases are shaped as they are bcs they were written
: for the harpsichord! Shaped and structured.
I'm not such a believer in the instrumental particularity of Bach's
music.
: As I said earlier,
: >dynamic attenuation is a given in piano performance.
: Tone decay, you mean? Of course, it's inherent in any instrument.
No, I mean variety. You just can't play a piano note the same way twice,
no matter how hard you try.
: >Doesn't replicating harpsichord performance practices on an instrument
: >with the amazing dynamic range of a piano seem a little weird?
: No, not at all. Anyway, I think the music is more important than
: the piano's capabilities. Just because I have 72 spices in my
: cabinet does not mean I use them all--or even more than 1 or 2--
: when I make beef stew. Just bcs the piano can make dynamic
: gradations does not mean I have to incorporate them into all the
: music I play. I choose not to incorporate them into Bach.
My point is that dynamic variety is a default in piano playing. So, why
not be musical about it, that's all.
This obsession with historically accurate performance practices on
non-historical instruments seems typically modernly obsessive...
Just my $.02 - I find this an interesting discussion, although a
vaguely disturbing one...
Phil Tompkins
On 16 Jul 1995, Lynwood F. Bronson wrote:
> There is a greater issue here. Bach was not fussy about what
> instruments played what. He constantly borrowed works composed for
> other instruments (some from his own pen and many from other composers)
> and arranged them for keyboard. He transcribed not only string works
> for keyboard but also wind instruments (i.e. Marcello's oboe concerto).
> He wasn't concerned for auhenticity, nor for the stylistic concerns
> inherent to particular instruments.
>
An interesting point. I wonder what Bach would have thought of Jacques
Loussier's arrangements of his music?
Phil
Phil Tompkins
I am one of those people who thinks that music in its
fundamental essence is a form of singing, and that as such
has potentially infinite variations in dynamic amplitude
as required by the contours of the "song". Instruments
are extensions of ourselves. If the instrument is not
capable of the dynamic variations which a piece as we
conceive it may require, we probably attempt to compensate
in other ways. I would guess that someone playing the
harpsichord makes variations in finger pressure which
represent subtle intended dynamic variations even though
these not get translated into actual dynamic variations.
And I wonder whether the listeners in their perceptions
of the harpsichord music attempt to insert corresponding
variations into their perceptions. (We after all do not
perceive things as they "actually are", but as our minds
reconstruct them.) Even for Book I Prelude I.
Phil
Richard Michael Fitz
be desired by a pianist when he/she is performing the work of Bach.
It is my opinion that if the harpsicord had been capable of producing dynamic
variances, then Bach would have written them in.
It is nessecary to play a piece of music to it's fullest potential without
destroying the pieces integrity
Alexander Hanysz
>In <DBq00...@dorsai.org> idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington)
>writes:
> proper phrasing implies a curve of dynamics,
>>phrasing Bach by default on a piano implies dynamic changes.
>
>
> Hmmm. Don't agree here. Proper phrasing does not necessitate
> a change in dynamics. On the piano, if we take the romantic
> literature (Beethoven and on) as a model, yes, phrases are
> shaped with dynamics as well as other musical devices. But
> if we take the harpsichord and music of Bach as the model,
> then, no, I disagree. Phrases are deliniated by lifts between
> them.
Here's another thought: the physical nature of the piano means that you
need changes in dynamics more than on any other instrument:
On a harpsichord, hitting a key a bit harder or softer doesn't make much of
a difference to the sound you get out, so terraced dynamics work quite
easily. On a piano, it's nearly impossible to play five consecutive notes
at exactly the same volume. If you try and play a phrase without dynamic
shaping, then (because of differences in finger strengh, etc.) it often
sounds a bit bumpy. (I know that Glenn Gould can do it well, and probably
a few other people. I'm talking about the majority of mere mortals.)
Putting a crescendo and diminuendo in will hide the natural unevenness, and
things just sound much more controlled.
(I think dynamics make better musical sense too, but those points have been
hashed over enough already.)
Alex.
Karen Boyd
for a year and 7 months. I was just assigned a Bach prelude (No.2 from
Alfred ed. of 18 short preludes). This debate has given me a lot to
think about. Interestingly, the Alfred edition has editorial markings,
i.e. dynamics in gray, to differentiate them from the original manuscript
markings.
Also,
Jeff: Don't be disturbed! :) Are you the one who used to have as your
sig file,
"When Bach plays, God goes to Mass" or something like that? Or was
that someone else?
At any rate, if you don't like to hear Bach with dynamics in the romantic
sense (gradations), look on the bright side. You don't have to hear
Martha Beth play it. Thanks to all.
Karen
Martha Beth Lewis (mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3t4s7k$p...@cliff.island.net> tuba...@epaus.island.net (Sammi Live)
: writes:
[snip several posts]
Others write
[snip]
Jeff Harrington
: Thanks very much for such an interesting thread! I have been playing
: for a year and 7 months. I was just assigned a Bach prelude (No.2 from
: Alfred ed. of 18 short preludes). This debate has given me a lot to
: think about. Interestingly, the Alfred edition has editorial markings,
: i.e. dynamics in gray, to differentiate them from the original manuscript
: markings.
: Also,
: Jeff: Don't be disturbed! :) Are you the one who used to have as your
: sig file,
: "When Bach plays, God goes to Mass" or something like that? Or was
: that someone else?
Nope, but I sure wish I had! :) I'm not really disturbed, just more
surprised that people would sacrifice the inherent beauty of the dynamic
range of a piano to the sacred god of historical accuracy in
performance. All for the sake of re-creating a performance practice on a
completely different instrument... that's all...
: At any rate, if you don't like to hear Bach with dynamics in the romantic
: sense (gradations), look on the bright side. You don't have to hear
: Martha Beth play it. Thanks to all.
But I want to hear her play it. Only a miracle of articulative
accomplishment in Bach voicing could convince me. I'm still a Dinu
Lipatti fan! But then again, I'm also tolerant of Stokowski
orchestrations. Ultimately, I think that the music transcends the
performance tradition. We know the music transcends the performer. I
love hearing Bach with all kinds of crazy inappropriate instruments
because, frankly, it gives me ideas for my compositions!
Kurt Shoens
as to what's the right way to play Bach has no single right answer, so
one gets to choose from a set of quite pleasant alternatives, according
to taste.
My teacher is of the "make use of what the piano provides you" camp.
I am of the more conservative camp because I think within my current
skills I can get the best effect with terraced dynamics and no pedal.
The only reason for debating "the right way" is for sport.
--
Kurt Shoens
Neil Radisch
for a harpsichord, perhaps it should be played on one.
Neil
Martha Beth Lewis
Hanysz) writes:
>On a harpsichord, hitting a key a bit harder or softer doesn't make
much of
>a difference to the sound you get out
It doesn't make -any- difference.
, so terraced dynamics work quite
>easily.
That's why terraced dynamics were invented: add more sets of
strings to increase volume; or do it with "tricks" such as
arpeggiating chords, fleshing out chords (by doubling root
and 5th), adding trills (esp long ones), etc.
Martha Beth
O
C:WINSOCKKA9QSPOOLMAIL
but would like to make a couple of general observations about
performing Bach's music.
1) As I see it the problem with "authenticity" is that, yes, we can
(and should) strive to play music in the way that the composer
intended, but no-one can ever know if we've got it "right". There
will always be arguments about the exact way to play, say,
ornaments, choice of tempi, or use of rubato - especially in
improvisatory passages. Scholarship can sometimes tell us when we've
got it wrong ! Ultimately what matters isn't whether we are
historically right or not but are we making music ? I've heard
"Authentic" performances of Bach's music that sent me to sleep, and
"unauthentic" performances which were electrifyingly compelling.
Authentic or not, it shouldn't be BORING.
2) I think we can and should try and reproduce "authentic" performance
practises, but bear in mind that our audiences are not listening with
"authentic" seveneenth-century ears. I think it was Peter Hurford who
said that there are three essentials for music making: the Music,
the Performer and the Audience. The audience is an integral part of
the process, and their (our) perceptions may totally distort what we
are trying to achieve -- just listen with 20th Century ears to
early recordings of Elgar performing his own music - I find
it sounds horribly mannered and false -- yet that is genuinely and
incontrovertably authentic. If this change in perception can happen
over a few decades, can we really hope to recapture the exact
'feel' of the music at the Weimar court two-and-a-half centuries
ago ? Even if it were possible, would it be a valid aim ?
3) I am personally delighted to discover more and more aspects of
Bach's music as I hear good, musical performances on more historically
"authentic" instruments, tuned to "authentic" temperaments (and
temperament really does make a big difference on the Organ) and trying
to reproduce "authentic" perfomance practises. BUT I think that is only
ONE approach to music making. Good music is also a creative process.
"Authentic" playing doesn't work on some instruments. If I am playing
an instrument on which "authentic" practises don't come across
convincingly, why shouldn't I adopt a different style of
playing if the resulting music still sounds compelling ? Should
we ban Bach on anything except Baroque instruments ? (and what about
"reproductions" ?) No, Bach's music can stand on its own two feet ! It
can only lead to artistic stagnation and death to insist that you can
ONLY play Bach on "authentic" intruments in an "authentic" way.
4) Bach was famous in his age for his highly innovative and
experimental approach to performance - for exploring the
resources of the instrument to the full, breaking all the "rules" about
registration and fingering, and producing performances
which left his hearers spellbound. It strikes me as being out of
touch with the spirit of his music to insist on too-rigid performances.
A previous contributor has made the point that Bach wasn't too fussed
WHAT instruments his music was played on, and he often made
"arrangements" for highly unexpected instruments or groups. Lots of
times the instrument isn't even specified at all.
5) Dynamics ! This is as much an issue in his Organ music as it is on
the Piano - should you change registrations ? Use different manuals
to give variety ? Use the anachronistic Swell Pedal (Aaargh !).
Consider this - many of the subtleties of Organ technique revolve
around giving an ILLUSION of dynamics to the sound - articulation, use
of agogic accents, timing, phrasing, ornamentation - to create an
impression of accents, stresses, contrasts etc.. The Passacaglia &
Fugue in c minor never used to be one of my favourite pieces - until I
heard Ton Koopman play it: Full Organ throughout - none of the
registration changes, none of the manual changes that other performers
use to add "variety" or "interest" to the piece. Koopman did it ALL
with phrasing and articulation and I found it utterly breathtaking -
real goosebump stuff ! My current thinking is that it is a mistake to
overload Bach's music with excessive dynamics, you can so easily
mask the music with too much dynamic "interest". But there are times
when the music seems to ask for contrast, and you've got to be
true to your sense of phrasing and musicianship on whatever instrument
you're playing. Surely it would be mistaken pedantry to insist that
Bach is always played in a rigid monotone. I'm sure Bach would have
experimented if presented with a modern pianoforte. (Yes I know he is
known to have improvised - the "Musical Offering" theme, in fact - on
an early fortepiano. His opinion is not recorded, but early pianos
really didn't sound much different from rather plummy harpsichords.)
Ultimately the questions are "do YOU enjoy it ?", "are YOU convinced
by it ?" . I love Glen Gould playing Bach on the Piano. I also love
Vladimir Horrowitz' unashamedly romantic piano interpretations of
Bach's contemporary Scarlatti. It's the Music which matters.
----------------------------------------------
| John Mitchell
| EMail j...@rheom.demon.co.uk|
|"Rules were made for the guidance of the wise
| and the blind obedience of fools"
| P.S.
| (Does anyone know the original source of
| that quote ? I'd love to know !)
----------------------------------------------
Alexander Hanysz
haven't. I've read that Bach enjoyed playing the clavichord, and that it's
capable of expressive dynamic variation.
Alex.
Philip Delaquess
(Alexander Hanysz) writes:
It is indeed capable of expressive variation; its dynamics run the
gamut from pppppp to pp.
My understanding is that clavichords were significantly cheaper than
harpsichords, and so much more widespread among the less than
fabulously well-to-do. Also, their eensy weensy sound made them
unsuitable for large public gatherings. Their advantage over the
harpsichord was that they could play with dynamics, and clever
inventors trying to make them louder eventually brought us the modern
piano.
Philip.
Chris Winkler
>It is indeed capable of expressive variation; its dynamics run the
>gamut from pppppp to pp.
>
>My understanding is that clavichords were significantly cheaper than
>harpsichords, and so much more widespread among the less than
>fabulously well-to-do. Also, their eensy weensy sound made them
>unsuitable for large public gatherings. Their advantage over the
>harpsichord was that they could play with dynamics, and clever
>inventors trying to make them louder eventually brought us the modern
>piano.
>
>Philip.
>
Don't forget that the clavichord has the capability of vibrato!
Jeff Harrington
: Don't forget that the clavichord has the capability of vibrato!
Here I'd have to put my foot absolutely down and say that pianists should
never attempt to add vibrato to a Bach clavichord/harpsichord composition!
There has to be some respect!
;-)
Kjetil Helstrup
> Chris Winkler (cwin...@neat.ebay.sun.com) wrote:
> : Don't forget that the clavichord has the capability of vibrato!
> Here I'd have to put my foot absolutely down and say that pianists should
> never attempt to add vibrato to a Bach clavichord/harpsichord composition!
> There has to be some respect!
> ;-)
what we pianists should do with the vibrato instructions in some pieces by
CPE.
Kjetil
Martha Beth Lewis
Martha Beth Lewis
writes:
>
>Chris Winkler (cwin...@neat.ebay.sun.com) wrote:
>
>: Don't forget that the clavichord has the capability of vibrato!
This vibrato is called Bebung and is accomplished by pressing
the finger directly up and down on the key will keeping it in
contact with the keybed (not as hard as it sounds!).
Bebung is designated by a series of dots above the note:
.....
note
Bebung is a type of ornament and should be used as one would
a baroque ornament, not thot of as a tone enhancer (as on a
violin or cello). The most common appearances for Bebung are
in cadential placements or on sustained notes in a melody.
Martha Beth
pleiade...@gmail.com
> My music history books all talk about baroque dynamics as being fairly
> unchanging during the course of a piece. Yet my version of the English
> Suites have very romantic dynamic markings all over the place. Fortes,
> pianos, crescendos etc. I can't imagine a harpsichord doing this. What
> gives? (I have the Czerny edition published by Schrimer (sp?))
>
>
> Neil
Fascinating thread below. I wonder if the same debate would be had if we were talking about Bach's contemporary, Domenico Scarlatti. In his music, there are so many repeated phrases, and these seem to invite a dynamic contrast (forte then piano or sometimes vice versa). For me, this is quintessential harpsichord writing, and I think it sounds great if you stick to 2 or maximum 3 dynamic levels, which of course can also create the illusion of a crescendo by e.g. adding notes progressively to chord, as Scarlatti often does.
Scarlatti's music also invites (me at least) to changes of speed, and longer pauses, as you often hear in harpsichord playing. For me, the spirit of Scarlatti's music is much better achieved on the piano by respecting these characteristics.
With Bach, it is a bit more complicated, because his writing tends not to be so tailored specifically to the harpsichord - it is almost as if he saw the keyboard as a means to an end, rather than as an individual instrument whose quirks called for a particular playing style.
I am not a great fan of 'authentic' playing for its own sake: I think some authentic playing, including on period instruments is fantastic, and some is actually rather boring. But I do think it's a good idea for performers to understand what the constraints of the original instrument were, and then make their choice of how to interpret, bearing this in mind or choosing to ignore it.
In the end, a great performance is an alchemy between the composer's text and the personality and imagination of the performer. And perhaps, in the days of easy access to many recorded versions, we also value even more the capacity of new interpretations to 'surprise' us, whether through careful research into authenticity, or through the sheer nerve of combining the composer's genius with the imagination of the performer. I actually think 'performer' in English is a misnomer: the French word is 'interpreter' and in my view it is much closer to the truth. There is no such thing as a correct 'performance', only a myriad of different 'interpretations', some of which move us, and some of which do not.
J.B. Wood
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com