Schiff is quickly showing himself to me to be a truly feeling, thinking master of his craft, more so than so many. That sounds far more vacuous than I would like, but it's when you get that feeling of being moved or educated or amused by everything he says or plays, and you wish the video was far longer. And that closing line: "Bach was one of us. The best of us, but one of us." Very beautiful indeed.
It was Andras Schiff who originally opened up my world to the beauty of Bach and I think he's still my favourite interpreter of his music. His insight, clarity, respect and profundity of his playing is exquisite but I could also happily hear him talk about these works all day.
“Bach is the supreme genius of music... This man, who knows everything and feels everything, cannot write one note, however unimportant it may appear, which is anything but transcendent. He has reached the heart of every noble thought, and has done it in the most perfect way.” - Pablo Casals
It is always a joy to listen to András Schiff in his explanation of Bachs music. He has really thoroughly reflected the music he plays. Es ist immer ein Genuss, die Ausführungen von András Schiff zu hören. Erstaunlich, wie tief und reflektiert er die Musik durchdrungen hat.
I've heard Bach played on a steel drum. I have heard Bach played on a marimba. No matter what instrument you play, Bach is beautiful and accessible to all.
For me Schiff is a great teacher. I enjoy every posting of his on the RU-vid. Most young people have no idea what lucky we are with all these available learning opportunities. I am very grateful. For example, I would have walked two miles to just listen to this RU-vid when I was 16.
“Any composer, even the most gifted, takes a place second to Bach's at the very start.” - Paul Hindemith “If one were asked to name one composer who came closest to composing without human flaw, I suppose general consensus would choose Johann Sebastian Bach...” - Aaron Copland "to make divine things human and human things divine; such is Bach, the greatest and purest moment in music of all time.” - Pablo Casals “...the greatest music in the world.....” - Felix Mendelssohn
They say "Sir Schiff". You don't address people you don't know somewhat by their first names, especially if you are acknowledging their membership in the gentry.
Apparently you're right! I've been misled for decades by an interview I read with the actor Anthony Hopkins, who said (after being knighted) that "they say "Sir Hopkins"." So I looked up how to address British nobility, and according to Wikipedia (heh) you only use the last name if the title is really your spouse's, and only if it's a "lesser" title like "Lord" or "Sir". Otherwise, it should be "Sir Anthony", for example.
@@ChollieD I reprimand you for not exercising due diligence before composing your first comment. But I commend you for your willingness to educate yourself and admit your mistakes.
whether you agree with Schiff or not, I appreciate him for being a thoughtful and analytical about his craft. So many believe that "artists" are just born with talent and don't have to do anything. Not so. He demonstrates that his talent and love of his craft have driven him to engage deeply and meaningfully with his studies. I think it may be Barenboim who criticized him for not using the pedal. Barenboim believes that this movement to replicate the "original" sound is silly and doesn't ultimately do what it intends to do.
Ah, Barenboim is the opponent. Well, I therefore cannot be on one side or the other. Both Schiff and Barenboim are artists reaching for infinity. Wherever each arrives, I cannot say what might be best.
I nearly like as much listening to Andras Schiff talking about Bach as playing Bach. Also, why, oh why is it so unusual and so refreshing to hear that C Prelude at last played "Stylus Phantasticus"? I admire Schiff enormously.
One wishes Schiff would touch on the subject of keyboard tuning (in an historical sense). "Well Tempered" in Bach's time translates today to meantone temperament, which gave each key signature a character. These key-personalities were extremely important for the structure of each prelude/fugue, prescribing in many cases their harmony.
Your comment, dear Rob Lingelbach, is just about the only one which is worth reading...And yes, he should have touched on this issue of utmost importance: "well tempered" is by no means equivalent to equal temperament!
Most musicologist agree that there are three apex composers. Bach, Handel and Beethoven. Most Bach people will disagree and place Bach at the top. However I feel that both Handel and Beethoven belong aside Bach not on the mathematical aspects of music but in Handel`s case his unbelievable melodic and dramatic gifts. Likewise, Beethoven excelled on his innovative and other worldly explorations of new of sounds and structure . Thank goodness for all three.
I completely agree with you, Mr. Schiff is a bit too traditionalist for my taste, He does, however, play the piano in such a masterful way that I can overlook that. I do wish, though, that he would stop with this nonsensical notion of the harpsichord having these sort of limits he describes in all his interviews. He makes many blanket statements about the harpsichord, and what he perceives as its "limits", I feel most of these limits can be overcome with all be it very skillful play.
DId you watch the video? He said he prefers the way the piano handles dynamics and does not like how overholding notes on the harpsichord effects the flow of the music.
Thanks to all who have written to disagree with Schiff's comments about the harpsichord. Harpsichord music by many composers is filled with appoggiaturas. Yes, the second note is as loud as the first on a harpsichord. But harpsichordists used other aspects of articulation, plus of course some imagination, and it worked just fine. So the argument is ridiculous. Sad, because Schiff brings many fine qualities to his playing, and his lectures on Beethoven are very illuminating.
I don't agree. Pedal can be beautyfull in Bach! And he was certainly not one of us (at least not one of me, that's for sure!). I think Bach would have been happy to know that so long after his death people stil enjoy playing his works, perfectly or not. He meant his keyboard works for entertainment, after all!
DAVID LOCKWOOD I guess its not rare to have German name for anyone coming from countries of former Austro-Hungarian Empire, and for a Jewish person it is eve more expectable. But there is definitely something Germanic in his mindset. Without doubts one of the top Bach players ever, if not the best one.
One can hear a clavichord in a hall, small!,or church.Erwin Bodky payed Pr & Fugues in the 30's in Amsterdams Concertgebouw ( I, too, at the end of my first Clavieruebung recital there in 1985. I would believe that the organ was the Master's favorite keyboard instrument., the summit of his Clavieruebung, the Third Book....
There are many great composers and I note you mention Palestrina a very early composer.Bach being a later Baroque composer had the benefit of earlier masters to learn from and if we judge the composers in their paradigm we can only be astounded at what they did but I will be controversial and say Bach was the greatest composer . But this of course is my opinion based on my unfailing admiration of his work. It constantly opens my mind to new aspects of his vast knowledge and creativity.
I respect Mr Schiff, but I also respectfully disagree with his evaluation of the harpsichord. The Well-Tempered Clavier can, and has been, played marvellously on this instrument. It is really a dead-end business to compare modern piano and harpsichord. They are different instruments, with different languages and different means of expression. One can do what the other can't and vice versa. Neither is better or worse. Neither is more or less expressive.
Schiff certainly knows how to wind up harpsichord fans with his claim that some pieces in the 48 are not suited to that sublime instrument! I think that hearing an instrument a great deal makes one respond to it more strongly. Piano fans are going to prefer Bach on the piano and harpsichord fans are going to prefer harpsichord performances. It's deep down in what their brain's learnt and trying to rationalise the preference may be missing the point.
Bach would have been delighted if he had a grand piano. All these "would be musicians" who become interviewers miss this important point and ask banal questions to show off their knowledge of music. Yes piano, No piano, Yes pedal, No pedal. Bach was an innovator and if he had a chance to own a computer for writing his music, he would have jumped on it too. Lastly, Bach's music would sound good if played well by a kazoo orchestra. His genius was writing music with a mathematical perfection unlike any other composer. Just listen to the myriad of transcriptions from instrument to another... they all sound great. He himself transcribed his own music for different instruments. Grow up and leave Bach alone :)
Eh, in prelude 881, the thinning and thickening of the musical texture on harpischord accomplishes the "sospiro" as he calls it. It's built into the bass line, and is actually much more apparent on harpischord than on piano. See Kenneth Gilbert or Glen Wilson on lute stop for good examples, not with Schiff's exaggerated rhythm. What about touch and timbre and temperament of modern piano (conveniently his own instrument) being very different from any instrument which Bach would have known?
MrKlemps I think Andras Schiff is referring to Arie Vardi, the great Israeli pianist and teacher. Check out their fascinating dialogue on RU-vid. In that same program, I also enjoyed hearing Schiff's comments regarding Glenn Gould's Bach playing.
Cyril Goldstone Thank you for alerting to me that wonderful interview. How rare for a great musician to be interviewed by someone--apparently another great musician, previously unknown to me--who knows the right questions to ask!
+Cyril Goldstone Actually, I think the pianist in question is someone about whom he and Arie were talking in that interview. They both agreed that the pianist is very difficult to debate, for he cannot be wrong and keeps on pushing well beyond the point where you've lost interest in trying. I can't remember his name, but they both knew what he was like. Skip through the interview again, and I'm sure you'll find it quickly. It was in the first part of the show, if I remember correctly, maybe 10 minutes in? -- [Edit] I went looking for it, and I must have misspoken. It apparently was not in that interview. I must be thinking of a different one, but I do not know which.
Schiff knows infinitely more than I do about Bach, but how can one say that the WTC is not meant to be played on a harpsichord? It definitely sounds better on a modern piano, but Bach intended it for something else... On the other hand, Well Tempered for Bach did not mean equal temperament, a subject that Schiff doesn't even mention!
Interesting! He firmly believes that Bach's favorite instrument was the clavichord. This belief comes from CPE Bach but now some people believe that CPE Bach attributed his own preference to his father. Proof? We have a surviving inventory of Bach's music collection when he died. He had quite a lot of music instruments in his possession but NOT A SINGLE CLAVICHORD.
I also very much enjoy his piano playing and have tried to learn from it. But as a harpsichordist, I feel insulted that he refuses to show the same kind of respect that many harpsichordists accord him.
“The elephant in the room” is not the modern piano. J.S. sounds superb on ANY instrument and at ANY time. ... the “elephant in the room” is the inappropriate question.
... also, a worse mistake you made was assuming that Schiff is more concerned about "playing exactly how" Bach wished (on ancient instruments) than what he himself as a musical interpreter wished (on progressively further developed instruments). An artist would be finished if he thinks that way as you think. Even a historian wouldn't be so pointlessly self-limiting.
The limitation of harpsichord was a simple fact stated in comparison to today's instruments that Bach had no luck to witness in his life, therefore your claim of "a completely dynamic result" is simply a deliberate exaggeration in your false attempt at refuting Schiff. Yes there could be some "dynamic result" on harpsichord (which Schiff apparently knows since he used them professionally!), but by no means "complete" compared to today's instruments - and that's Schiff's point.
Is M. Schiff, great pianist that he is, totally unaware of how harpsichord technique works ? There is no need for any agogics, just a little overholding, a little décalage between the hands and clear musical projection and you can have a completely dynamic result. Would Bach have ever allowed the limitations of the harpsichord to prevent him from playing exactly how he wished ? I have lost all respect for Schiff.
I really don't like the way Glenn Gould plays Bach, to me he ruins it. In general, I think the well tempered klavier should be played with pedal, however, I make an exception for András Schiff as I think he plays Bach incredibly without pedal. I don't like the way Gould plays Bach without pedal. Listen to Daniel Barenboim's Well tempered klavier album, that is how Bach should be played with pedal. This is my opinion of course, feel free to disagree, I respect other opinions. Fascinating topic nonetheless.
I met a guy who did not like Bach / classical music, he died of a drug overdose, so yeah just some junkie. If you don't like Bach you don't know much about music :D
Can we please move on from the notion that playing Bach on the piano is somehow daring?! Have these conservative idiots heard of Wendy Carlos? Bach WORKS on the piano and just about every other instrument that has 12 semitones and few octaves to spread out on! End of story.
About every word from his mouth is utter uneducated nonsense! - "What's the right instrument for Bach? It's impossible to answer! [...] You cannot say what [the WTC] was written for" is plain wrong. While many of the pieces work on other instruments, technical and stylistical elements clearly favour the harpsichord. - "[Clavier] is first and foremost the clavichord. [...] This was Bach's favourite instrument" Clavier does mean "keyboard instrument", but not first and foremost the clavichord, and there's no evidence anywhere to suggest otherwise. Besides, as someone else pointed out already, there's not a single clavichord listed in Bach's belongings (a number of harpsichords though), so it's highly doubtful it really was his favourite instrument. - He says "sospiri" when demonstrating an appoggiatura, alas, the term "sospiratio" describes something entirely different, a pause inserted into a melody, and only came to be associated with descending tones much later. - He claims the harpsichord is unable to properly play an appoggiatura and the only means of approximating it is by making "huge agogic changes". Again, wrong on both accouts. The harpsichord is not only capable of playing an appoggiatura, it also has many more means of doing so aside from "huge agogic changes". Besides, would so many people have written for the harpsichord music containing appoggiaturas, had they been convinced that the harpsichord was unable to play them? - "The a minor fuge from the WTC is an organ piece, as evident from the pedal point at the end, which is only playable by an organ". Only if you look at the score without ever playing it. Playing it on the harpsichord this is what happens: by the time you need to let go of that low A because your hand needs to move elsewhere, the note has already faded, so letting go of it is not noticable. Besides, why would Bach, the great organist, who wrote such devilish pedal parts in his organ music, write a piece for organ, in which the pedal is used for only a single note at the end? Surely, had this piece been intended for the organ, you'd be able to tell from more than one note! - His argument against using the pedal is "Bach didn't have a pedal, so why should I use the pedal?", which is a valid argument. However, he fails to apply that same argument to the modern piano as a whole. "Bach didn't have a Steinway, so why should I use a Steinway?" sounds like a reasonable thought to me. I could go on, but then I wouldn't get anything else done tday...
Who is this pretentious stuffed shirt asking these banal questions. First, since there are no recordings of Bach playing his own music, everything said about this and that about Bach is pure speculation. If Bach had access to a modern grand piano with a sustain pedal he would have been thrilled. If it were a digital piano he would have been even more thrilled. Had he heard jazz, he would have probably gone mad with excitement and written a great jazz 4 part fugue. Great musicians are always looking to expand their horizons. Who does not agree?
