Playing Bach

I have been studying with a Bach expert - I mean the guy has his cantatas done to Barique tunings, period instruments, appropriate articulations and awareness of the baroque affects. And there is plenty of latitude!

Now keyboard works - the usual touch is non-legato, not a staccatto! I have to say Gould is guilty of this error at times. Second, "expression" was done through articulation and marking well phrase shapes and change in harmony.

On a modern piano I think Bach would welcome a pianist who exploits its resources to the fullest -- with taste! So pedaling and attentiveness to dynamics is paramount as long as it is tied to the harmonic/melodic structure and affect. Recall Bach at heart was both performer and pedagogue. The only thing I dislike in modern pianist is the habit of mistaking non-legato for stacatto or something between the two and giving insufficient dynamic shading. Btw non-legato is tricky at first but easy once you get it and is not the first touch to learn -- "over" legato or modern legato is harder and needs to be learned first. Non legato is depressing the next key immediatly after you release the prior one. The trick is not to have the tones overlap or too much space between them. once you get it and apply it to Bach, the music just moves of its own accord without much forcible expression -- the same way learning modern legato enable you to play much late Romantic and modern music with ease.

Finally, mastering non-legato has become very important to playing new music - it is the influence of the period performance practice revolution.

i got points off my mark for my piano exam.

JUST BECAUSE i tried to use extreme rubato in Bach's fugue.

<.<

First sorry to hear that chodel - but hey, you took an interpretive risk. Now here is the reason why they took points off -

In a Bach fugue extreme rubato is not the norm. Now, if it were a Bach's Chromatic Fantasy or one of his early Tocattas then some rubato would be allowed but unlike say Chopin where the melodic line can dictate the amount of rubato for Bach it is more the harmonic movement and affect (that is certain gestures which can just be a falling 6th or two or three rising chromatic steps) that determine this.

Also, there is in some French and German Baroque note inegals which would be the closest thing to "swing" eighths or sixteenths in jazz/pop/blues/ and more an contemporary classical scores. But it is not the same as "rubato" found in Romantic and early 20th century music.

What I meant by there is plenty of latitude is by means of adhering to the tempo you can play within the measure with note values and attacks and touch. That is where there is some freedom.

Why not record it and post it if you can (I wish I could but I am unable to)?

Corbin - OMG you did that piece on viola! The keyboard version is difficult I can imagine what it is like to play that thing on the viola -- do post a link to it I would love to hear it.

First sorry to hear that chodel - but hey, you took an interpretive risk. Now here is the reason why they took points off -

In a Bach fugue extreme rubato is not the norm.

lol. i knew. but i did it anyways. how stupid of me.

I'm working on the Fuga from BWV 914. For me, it's like slowly chiseling away on a block of stone.

Im working on the italian conerto and the prelude & fugue in c minor for TWC book 2, bach is allways a technical challange :) you people should try to play bach transcription of vivaldis violin concerto in d major. (bwv 972) very fun on keyboard :D sounds best with organ and trumpet though :)

Palestrina - the 2nd mvmt of the Italian is especially beautiful on an organ - the way Bach wrote it lends it especially well to using one manual for the cantilena part, and another manual and pedalboard for the accompaniment. It isn't that difficult to do if you have learned it on piano and have basic proficiency of organ (reason being you'd use the pedal only for the very lowest part of the accompaniment). I used it for Holy Saturday a few years ago when I had a church gig. It was very effective and people loved it.

Toccata in C minor. It's one of those controversial ones, since everyone has a different interpretation of how it's meant to be played

To be completely honest, I don't think that Bach himself would of cared too much about the way his music was interpreted. I'm learning BWV 527 and can't seem to find a common thread between the performances of the the sonata that I've heard, so I settle for what my teacher advised.

Playing Bach is similar to the way we perform Beethoven symphonies.

Sure, we can argue over pretentious details and justifications, but when it comes down to it, we play Beethoven symphonies at the tempos we do because we think it sounds better. There's no real justification for ignoring his metronome markings. No, I dont care if "he was deaf" or "an entire orchestra takes longer to get the sound out than it does in our head." Beethoven had been around orchestras his entire life. He would have known this. The bottom line is that we blatantly ignore some of his metronome markings because we think it sounds too fast. There's no real justification for insinuating that there is anything "wrong" about them.

As for Bach, in a similar vein, we can say whatever we want about performance practice, but the bottom line is that we listen to/play Bach on the piano because we like the way it sounds; because lots of people find the harpsichord sound grating on the ears. It bothers me so much when people say "If Bach had access to a pianoforte he would have used one!" because if he had access to one his compositions wouldnt have been exactly the same. If Bach is played on the piano, I believe it diminishes the right to claim "correctness" in that sense. Yes, you can still hold true performance practice (that is to say what we assume about it) in manners such as tempo, but the point I am trying to make is that we dont just choose the piano out of convenience, though that might be the case sometimes. We choose the piano for our own enjoyment, so when you play Bach, make it enjoyable, whatever that means to you.

As for Bach, in a similar vein, we can say whatever we want about performance practice, but the bottom line is that we listen to/play Bach on the piano because we like the way it sounds; because lots of people find the harpsichord sound grating on the ears. It bothers me so much when people say "If Bach had access to a pianoforte he would have used one!" because if he had access to one his compositions wouldnt have been exactly the same. If Bach is played on the piano, I believe it diminishes the right to claim "correctness" in that sense. Yes, you can still hold true performance practice (that is to say what we assume about it) in manners such as tempo, but the point I am trying to make is that we dont just choose the piano out of convenience, though that might be the case sometimes. We choose the piano for our own enjoyment, so when you play Bach, make it enjoyable, whatever that means to you.

I think the reasoning that we play Bach on the piano instead of the harpsichord has more to do with the fact that pianos are more readily available to the general populace than the harpsichord is and NOT because people find the harpsichord grating. TBH, having attended quite a few period instrument performances - I found that people like the sound the harpsichord makes.

I think Bach should be played how the performer wants. To be authentic is to build a time machine and go to 1740 and play. But we don't have that technology.

Soo, while we're still here, we should try things differently. Don't go for an accepted interpretation. Try something completely different! Play the Toccata in C major massively slow and loud and play the fugue overly fast and quiet. Try it. If you're on organ, use a modern set of stops, don't make it sound like 1750.

I think the reasoning that we play Bach on the piano instead of the harpsichord has more to do with the fact that pianos are more readily available to the general populace than the harpsichord is and NOT because people find the harpsichord grating. TBH, having attended quite a few period instrument performances - I found that people like the sound the harpsichord makes.

I'm under the impression that far more people dislike it, though I've always been drawn to it.

Either way, when it comes to professional performers, go ahead and do a survey on how many do their recordings and performances on the piano as opposed to harpsichord. There is a very clear preference. Yes, for keyboardists learning to play Bach, there's no practicality in going out of ones way to find a harpsichord, but that doesnt really hold water for those that are higher up there.

There's no real justification for ignoring his metronome markings. No, I dont care if "he was deaf" or "an entire orchestra takes longer to get the sound out than it does in our head." Beethoven had been around orchestras his entire life. He would have known this. The bottom line is that we blatantly ignore some of his metronome markings because we think it sounds too fast. There's no real justification for insinuating that there is anything "wrong" about them.

It's a bit off topic, but I'd just like to point out that there's much more to the research on Beethoven's metronome markings than what you make it out to be there. It's not just "ignoring them because it seems he did it wrong". It's interpreting what he actually meant with them, which is far from clear. I know people who have dedicated many years of their life to such research, and believe me, there's a lot of scientific justification for what they're doing. (Even though one might still disagree with their methods or findings.)

And of course I agree that just saying "if Bach had had access to a piano he would have used one" is a bit silly, but that doesn't mean that some people don't actually put much thought into their interpretations (be it historical accuracy, or entirely different things). Not everyone only plays things because "they just feel like playing it that way".

Well I have been studying the organ Prelude and Fugue in G major BWV 541 for close to 9 months - only recently has it begun to approach where I want ti for performance but there is much to do. So I empathize with those studying Bach's keyboard works.

It's a bit off topic, but I'd just like to point out that there's much more to the research on Beethoven's metronome markings than what you make it out to be there. It's not just "ignoring them because it seems he did it wrong". It's interpreting what he actually meant with them, which is far from clear. I know people who have dedicated many years of their life to such research, and believe me, there's a lot of scientific justification for what they're doing. (Even though one might still disagree with their methods or findings.)

And of course I agree that just saying "if Bach had had access to a piano he would have used one" is a bit silly, but that doesn't mean that some people don't actually put much thought into their interpretations (be it historical accuracy, or entirely different things). Not everyone only plays things because "they just feel like playing it that way".

I just want to say that I'm not using "because they like the way it sounds" in a sarcastic sense. That is, I dont mean that people who play (conduct) Beethoven at any tempo other than what Beethoven wrote arent justified in doing so, I just am so tired of the pretension over the issue of "respecting the composer." It causes massive problems with classical music as a modern institution, and it's just this awful fundamentalism that is so inhibiting movement forward. (Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating disrespect, just a touch of reality.)

Yes, when Beethoven made a metronome marking, it requires its own interpretation, as it cannot apply in a strict sense to the entire piece... but I'm sorry, when Mr Karajan sets up the opening to the third symphony in a solid pulse of roughly 51 to the measure, and Beethoven clearly wrote 60, there's just no getting around the fact that he's disregarding the metronome mark.

Yes, he may be taking into account plenty of historical considerations, but the point is that he is giving those factors priority over Beethoven's metronome mark because he thinks that it sounds better at ~51. My point is that the deciding factor in whether or not those other considerations take priority over the marking is often whichever we find ourselves more pleased by.

I'm not attempting to say that giving priority to how we want something to sound is invalid, I just would rather we own up to the fact that we're doing just that instead of soothing ourselves by doing everything we can to pull up evidence that Beethoven didnt REALLY want his symphonies to be played that fast.

To be completely honest, I don't think that Bach himself would of cared too much about the way his music was interpreted.

What makes you think that? :x

I just want to say that I'm not using "because they like the way it sounds" in a sarcastic sense. That is, I dont mean that people who play (conduct) Beethoven at any tempo other than what Beethoven wrote arent justified in doing so, I just am so tired of the pretension over the issue of "respecting the composer." It causes massive problems with classical music as a modern institution, and it's just this awful fundamentalism that is so inhibiting movement forward. (Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating disrespect, just a touch of reality.)

Yes, I realize you didn't claim that playing Beethoven the way one likes it is wrong. And I agree with this paragraph. I think historical performance practice is definitely no necessity, and performing music can (and probably should) be much more than just "respecting the composer". It is an artistic statement on its own. That doesn't mean historical performance practice, or any other practice founded on research is meaningless. I think we have gained a lot of musical richness since historical performance practice became more widespread, and personally I'm extremely glad we don't live in a world full of Karajans anymore (nor in one that consists merely of Harnoncourts, even if I'd prefer the latter), but in one where historically founded practices and "personal musical expression" live alongside and cross-fertilize.

Yes, when Beethoven made a metronome marking, it requires its own interpretation, as it cannot apply in a strict sense to the entire piece... but I'm sorry, when Mr Karajan sets up the opening to the third symphony in a solid pulse of roughly 51 to the measure, and Beethoven clearly wrote 60, there's just no getting around the fact that he's disregarding the metronome mark.

No, not at all. The research I pointed out actually focuses on whether a lot of the metronome markings of Beethoven's time and much further into the 19th century are actually meant as half our modern beats, i.e. that depending on the context they used to be interpreted twice as slow as we'd read it today. It's actually about much greater differences than just between 51/60, but doesn't apply to all music (depending on the meter and other things). Tempo/meter is one of the elements of western musical notation that is quite dubious, and the rather straightforward way we describe and treat meter today is contrasted by many rather complex, obscure, and inconsistent practices of the past centuries.

Yes, he may be taking into account plenty of historical considerations, but the point is that he is giving those factors priority over Beethoven's metronome mark because he thinks that it sounds better at ~51. My point is that the deciding factor in whether or not those other considerations take priority over the marking is often whichever we find ourselves more pleased by.

Sure, but that's because it's Karajan. He usually just did what he wanted. If a conductor with a background in historical performance practice would conduct at such a tempo, the likelihood that it's actually founded on research would be much greater. Karajan is a conductor from an already passed generation now, where those questions were less prevalent than they are today.

I'm not attempting to say that giving priority to how we want something to sound is invalid, I just would rather we own up to the fact that we're doing just that instead of soothing ourselves by doing everything we can to pull up evidence that Beethoven didnt REALLY want his symphonies to be played that fast.

Well, that's just the point I have an issue with. You seem to be saying that the people who play Beethoven in a certain way that isn't on the first glance what you see in the score are necessarily just doing it "because they like it better that way", even if they say they are founding it on something. Basically (even if you have no issue with what they're doing), you're accusing them of lying. Can't you accept that some people actually do have good, founded reasons for playing it that way and aren't merely "doing everything they can to pull up evidence" to make it seem so, when in reality it isn't? Give them the benefit of the doubt, at least.

I think one interesting example of this interpretation of a composers work via the composers intent, came to me a few weeks ago. I was listening to Beethoven's 7th (my favorite symphony of his) and decided to, for the first time, view it with the score in hand. I've heard this piece performed by MANY symphony orchestras - as I said its my favorite of his - and all interpret the piece pretty much the same. Anyways, as I was looking at the score I noticed - first of all that many passages are repeated. However, the recording had no repeat..the conductor ignored the repeats and went right in to the next section. This was the case with other recordings of the work that I had listened to afterwards - and quite a few others on youtube as well..lol. I finally found a recording that used the repeats... and the movement itself was double the length it was on all the other recordings - which really gives a good idea why... the repeats added the material lost its impact and by the time the movement was 1/2 way over... I was already done listening. I think that clearly illustrates Gardeners point on it - at least somewhat.... i hope.

Play it the way you want to play it! There are many different ways to play bach, some use much pedal/dynamic/rubato and some dont. I belive its important to focus on the voices when you play bach, every voice shall be equal, not one higher and lower like in the romantic music. Bach with pedal is often not good in my ears, it takes away the clearity of the voices. but there are some pieces who works very well with pedal, like slow movements etc.

"Originally Posted by jujimufu

In fact, I find it weird, but although I adore Gould's Bach playing, I don't really like his recordings of more contemporary pieces, such as Berg's piano sonata and others (with the exception of Schoenberg's Suite for Piano). On the other hand, I haven't listened to as many contemporary pieces by Gould as I have of Bach, so I can't really say"

Ofcourse not, becasue he have not played much contemporary music compared to bach.

Bach is a favorite of mine, especially his Prelude No. 1. The first time I heard it was at a concert by classical pianist Ronnie Segev.