Bach on the harpsichord, lute-harpsichord, clavichord

[prémont]

(What is "cm"?)

Q

Classical Music, I suppose.

[bassio]

Classical Music, I suppose.

No premont, that will be CM.

cm will probably mean c minor if I am not mistaken.

[prémont]

No premont, that will be CM.

cm will probably mean c minor if I am not mistaken.

I can see minor problems here, but I assume fl.traverso made a capital error.

[Bunny]

Yes I have – now.

Egarr uses a modern copy of a ( Johannes?) Rückers harpsichord from 1638, an instrument I would expect to sound more crisp and even a bit harsh, but the sound of Egarr´s instrument is so sweet as to defy its origin. It may be the recording though, but it does not suit the music IMO . Egarr´s tempi are generally slow, often too slow to my taste, and he plays too much legato. He seems to confuse articulation and phrasing, playing long phrases in strict legato, and in the end the music presents itself badly under-articulated. His agogics are very free with much dragging, and essentially romantic. In the long run he seems mannered. All the pieces – most true of the fugues – get the same basic treatment without much individual characterisation. It is a dreadful exercise in futility, which at best may be good for sleeplessness.   

Thank you for the review!  I have his Goldbergs which I also found disappointing -- too slow and bland. 

[val]

Regarding the harpsichord works, my selection is:

WTC, 1 and 2 / Gustave Leonhardt  (but Gulda, piano, goes more deeply in the poetry and meditation of this work)

Concerto Italiano, Chromatic Fantasy, Fantasy and Fugue BWV 904 / Andreas Staier

6 Partitas and 6 English Suites / Leonhardt

6 French Suites / Ton Koopman

Goldberg Variations / Pierre Hantai

Regarding the Toccatas and the Inventions, I have always prefered the piano version of Glenn Gould

Organ Works:
The complete set by Marie-Claire Alain remains my favorite.

But for the Leipzig Chorals, I would chose Pierre Bardon, for the delicious Orgelbüchlein Andre Isoir, and for the Toccatas the more spectacular Ton Koopman.

[FideLeo]

I can see minor problems here, but I assume fl.traverso made a capital error.

What minor problems do you mean?  I think cm=classical music fans should be so much more
self-evident than c minor fans, no?  I have by now listened to Egarr's WTC a few times more
and all I can say is that it does improve with repeated exposures.  Controversial yes, and I
bet Egarr himself knew it (he would have listened to a lot of other people perform) and still
HM was supportive of his projects.  Reason?  It works within certain contexts and sadly most
GMG'ers do not and will not belong in these.  Too different to provide a ready access I suppose.

As for the question of "spine" in this (and other) music by Bach, I would simply say I will agree
to disagree with Don, given the fact that neither Bach nor other contemporary sources actually
address this - i.e. "spine" as applied to music as if it were a living organism, which is clearly a modern
way of expressing a certain preference in playing styles, and therefore for me has no universal or
objective significance. 

[Que]

Controversial yes, and I bet Egarr himself knew it (he would have listened to a lot of other people perform) and still HM was supportive of his projects.  Reason?  It works within certain contexts and sadly most GMG'ers do and will not belong in these.  Too different to provide a ready access I suppose.

FL, for me you talking riddles here. What do mean?
What would be an obstacle (for most here) to appreciate Egarr's take on the WTC?

Q

[FideLeo]

What would be an obstacle (for most here) to appreciate Egarr's take on the WTC?

That he adopts a playing style and an interpretative viewpoint that most do not comprehend nor appreciate? 
Something that definitely lacks a spine because the performer doesn't think spine is required in this music?

ps. I am guessing that the particular tuning system advocated by Bradley Lehmann may have been responsible for what ppl here hear as "soft" or "bland" to a larger extent than they realise.  But it would be difficult to prove exactly how much unless Egarr would play it again using other more frequently used tunings.

[prémont]

What minor problems do you mean?  I think cm=classical music fans should be so much more
self-evident than c minor fans, no? 

Do not understand me so literally, I am just playing with words.

I have by now listened to Egarr's WTC a few times more and all I can say is that it does improve with repeated exposures.  Controversial yes, and I bet Egarr himself knew it (he would have listened to a lot of other people perform) and still HM was supportive of his projects.  Reason?  It works within certain contexts and sadly most GMG'ers do not and will not belong in these.  Too different to provide a ready access I suppose.

Which contexts?? I have listened to it twice, and I still find, that the different pieces are poorly characterized, and that everything is played in uniform soft legato manner, and why should this be controversial? It is just that Egarr has not got much to say about the music. The phrases must speak more, must be shaped more rhethorical, and the articulation must be more pointed. I am sure Bach would have found Egarr very dull and boring.

As for the question of "spine" in this (and other) music by Bach, I would simply say I will agree
to disagree with Don, given the fact that neither Bach nor other contemporary sources actually
address this - i.e. "spine" as applied to music as if it were a living organism, which is clearly a modern
way of expressing a certain preference in playing styles, and therefore for me has no universal or
objective significance. 

Spine or balls if you want. Egarr puts the lid on the virility and the drama in the music.

[FideLeo]

The phrases must speak more, must be shaped more rhethorical, and the articulation must be more pointed. I am sure Bach would have found Egarr very dull and boring.

Perhaps you have answered your own question?  That you demand music to sound exciting and pointed, as much so as to your taste?  I am not sure that Bach would certainly have agreed with your taste.  Or perhaps you could prove how? 

Spine or balls if you want. Egarr puts the lid on the virility and the drama in the music.

And we have many other versions that provide plenty of these if you must have them.  I think I am beginning to hear positive things in Egarr's WTC.

[Bunny]

That he adopts a playing style and an interpretative viewpoint that most do not comprehend nor appreciate? 
Something that definitely lacks a spine because the performer doesn't think spine is required in this music?

ps. I am guessing that the particular tuning system advocated by Bradley Lehmann may have been responsible for what ppl here hear as "soft" or "bland" to a larger extent than they realise.  But it would be difficult to prove exactly how much unless Egarr would play it again using other more frequently used tunings.

The blandness that I referred to was not merely in the harmonic sound of his Goldbergs, but also in the very lethargic and almost plodding rhythms.   For my taste, I want Goldbergs that dance as well as sing.  Egarr's Goldbergs for some reason, sound bland and very flat-footed to me.  For my taste, if such a harmonious tuning system is going to be used, then the variations need more rhythmic drive so that one sees more than Bach's "pretty face."  If Egarr's new WTC is in that same style, then I will pass. 

[BorisG]

The blandness that I referred to was not merely in the harmonic sound of his Goldbergs, but also in the very lethargic and almost plodding rhythms.   For my taste, I want Goldbergs that dance as well as sing.  Egarr's Goldbergs for some reason, sound bland and very flat-footed to me.  For my taste, if such a harmonious tuning system is going to be used, then the variations need more rhythmic drive so that one sees more than Bach's "pretty face."  If Egarr's new WTC is in that same style, then I will pass. 

It is very bland. To be kind and gentle, I won't say dull or boring. It is poor example of what even a relic like the harpsichord can do, with the right hands and brain.

What would JS prefer? More projection? A lively delivery? I think he would have preferred the organ (vs harpsichord) for both power and note sustainability.

Sadly, we do not have much that is quotable from the great man. As one scholar said, "only a few chestnuts from his sons." And none of these are specific about instrumentation.

I suspect in those days that composers/musicians just got on with it, with whatever was immediately available. Later, as reporting and options improved, the instrumentation and orchestral preferences and wishful thinkings of many composers/musicians became known.

[prémont]

I think I am beginning to hear positive things in Egarr's WTC.

Would you mind to elaborate a little?

[FideLeo]

Would you mind to elaborate a little?

I think the low pitch, broad phrasing, relaxed tempi and Lehman tuning that Egarr uses in this recording (and his Goldberg) appear to shift my attention from the discursive or rhetorical aspect of the music to
its textural feel as a polyphonic network or fabric, where all voices can be heard un-perturbed with almost the same degree of clarity.  Yes the result will no doubt sound boring to those who listen for a musical message, but it will also spare those who only want to perceive the music through listening the onerous task of decoding various interpretative gestures or designs that the performer has brought upon this music.  When the (imagined) actions are thankfully purged from the scene, the music can then emerge as some kind of an aural landscape which the listener can either behold passively or do so actively to make new connections (eg. c minor prelude as an aria ritornello that shows vexation and hesitation instead as a stormy overdrive) of his own.  Maybe this can be called a non-interventionist approach to Bach - which surely can't be everybody's cup of tea.  

[prémont]

I think the low pitch, broad phrasing, relaxed tempi and Lehman tuning that Egarr uses in this recording (and his Goldberg) appear to shift my attention from the discursive or rhetorical aspect of the music to
its textural feel as a polyphonic network or fabric, where all voices can be heard un-perturbed with almost the same degree of clarity.  Yes the result will no doubt sound boring to those who listen for a musical message, but it will also spare those who only want to perceive the music through listening the onerous task of decoding various interpretative gestures or designs that the performer has brought upon this music.  When the (imagined) actions are thankfully purged from the scene, the music can then emerge as some kind of an aural landscape which the listener can either behold passively or do so actively to make new connections (eg. c minor prelude as an aria ritornello that shows vexation and hesitation instead as a stormy overdrive) of his own.  Maybe this can be called a non-interventionist approach to Bach - which surely can't be everybody's cup of tea.  

Thanks, FL, now I understand, what you mean, but I am a bit shocked to read this from you. As far as I can see, you (and Egarr) advocate principles of interpretation from the "preauthentic" age (ca.1930-1975). In these days Bach´s harpsichord music was often played with the least possible musical gestures and articulation, because many musicians thought that lack of indication of the articulation in the harpsichord scores meant, that the music was to be played with a uniform touch throughout (a misguided back-to-the-score movement). Many thought that "chronic legato touch" was to be preferred. This is true of Isolde Ahlgrimm, Martin Galling and the very young Gustav Leonhardt among others. Incidentally they also preferred broad tempi. Very much like Egarr. But have a look at Bach´s scores of his chamber music (e.g. violin-harpsichord sonatas, dedicational score of the Brandenburgs), and you will find a wealth of carefully applied articulation marks, and it is certainly impossible to think, that Bach wanted his chamber music to be played very articulated but his harpsichord music to be played unarticulated – or under-articulated, if you want. So of course the harpsichord music was meant to be articulated in the same way. Now it is self-deception to think, that it is possible to play as much as a single note without interpreting it at the same time, so Egarr´s view represents of course just as much an interpretation as e.g. Hantaï´s, just a different and less HIP-related interpretation. This is more appropriate to say, than calling his approach non-interventional. By the way if you really want to get to know the essence of the music in a true non-interventional approach, the only way to do so is by skipping any dependence of interpretations and study the scores in scientifically reliable editions. 

[FideLeo]

Thanks, FL, now I understand, what you mean, but I am a bit shocked to read this from you. As far as I can see, you (and Egarr) advocate principles of interpretation from the "preauthentic" age (ca.1930-1975). In these days Bach´s harpsichord music was often played with the least possible musical gestures and articulation, because many musicians thought that lack of indication of the articulation in the harpsichord scores meant, that the music was to be played with a uniform touch throughout (a misguided back-to-the-score movement).  (snip)

Yes, it is essentially impossible to play any music without an interpretation of some sort.  However I will argue that not all HIPs will sound alike -- given the fact that Egarr is no new hand in this business, I, unlike you, will refrain from speculating on how "pre-HIP" his performance appears to be.   In some fugues his approach is actually similar to that of Davitt Moroney, whose work I also enjoy among HIP versions.

[FideLeo]

Bach, indisputably HIP 

[Que]

Bach, indisputably HIP 

I have that and it's a very nice recording, but rather to my own surprise I clearly preferred Robert Hill in these works (mostly) after Johann Adam Reincken's Hortus musicus



Q

[FideLeo]

I have that and it's a very nice recording, but rather to my own surprise I clearly preferred Robert Hill in these works (mostly) after Johann Adam Reincken's Hortus musicus

Well I might prefer Staier 

[Bunny]

I think the low pitch, broad phrasing, relaxed tempi and Lehman tuning that Egarr uses in this recording (and his Goldberg) appear to shift my attention from the discursive or rhetorical aspect of the music to
its textural feel as a polyphonic network or fabric, where all voices can be heard un-perturbed with almost the same degree of clarity.  Yes the result will no doubt sound boring to those who listen for a musical message, but it will also spare those who only want to perceive the music through listening the onerous task of decoding various interpretative gestures or designs that the performer has brought upon this music.  When the (imagined) actions are thankfully purged from the scene, the music can then emerge as some kind of an aural landscape which the listener can either behold passively or do so actively to make new connections (eg. c minor prelude as an aria ritornello that shows vexation and hesitation instead as a stormy overdrive) of his own.  Maybe this can be called a non-interventionist approach to Bach - which surely can't be everybody's cup of tea. 

That's pretty much what I found attractive in the Emerson String Quartet's recording of the Art of the Fugue. 

How does this WTC compare to Landowska's for instance, which is also on the slower side?