The "not playing Bach on the piano" faction is so stupid.. Bach himself transcribed pieces to and from all kinds of instruments. In most keyboard compositions he doesn't even mention the specific instrument (Goldberg Variations is an exception). So it's really clear he didn't care
Agreed. If someone wants to do historically-accurate performances, AWESOME! Go for it! But let's not pretend Bach played on modern instruments is somehow heretical. I doubt Bach would have clutched his pearls seeing his music played on an analog synthesizer. What's so great about Bach is his music is almost instrument-agnostic. It sounds good on almost everything. I bet his 2-part inventions would sound cool on two kazoos for Pete's sake.
The key words: “I think.” Neither Evan, nor Glenn Gould, nor Andras Schiff, nor myself have the last word on what Bach would have done. I’ve played Bach most days of my life, including music for many very different instruments: violin, cello, flute, gamba, lute, chorus, and of course, keyboard. I’ve transcribed it for many other instruments. When you do that, you start learning what he wrote idiomatically for a given instrument, or musically - the progressions and ornaments he heard regardless of instruments. Over the years it all starts fitting together, and you see that he was not rigid. He wasn’t “authentic” in performing his own music. For example, just try to pin down an authentic version of the French Suites. You see that he wrote it down (or dictated it to this students) differently over his lifetime. Or take the Partitas and Sonatas for Solo Violin and see how they were written for expression that modern violinists have brought out in powerful interpretations. (The Chaconne in d, for example) They couldn’t even play that way in Bach’s day, but you begin to see certain idioms and to realize that Bach heard a lot more than he was able to put down on the page. He wrote for posterity, not for authenticity. He wanted people to take his music and make it their own while being true to his intended counterpoint of tension and release. This much he understood very well about music, and had no qualms borrowing from another composer and making that HIS own. “Authenticity” had not reared its ugly head then, and he wrote music that was very flexible, usable for many purposes. Most of all: keep playing Bach’s music for the rest of your life. It will never stop teaching you about itself, about yourself, and about Bach, not to mention the art of music in general. Avoid other people’s rules like the plague. Just learn his ornaments (very important) and let the music tell you the rest. Never be afraid to try something, including [cue horror music] the PEDAL! Bach would have grabbed it up and used it, had it appeared in his time. He also would have said “DON’T” in quite a number of common situations, like a fugue, for example. Again; your ear, your experience, your age, and your talent will always make your performance different from others, but always exercise moderation and restraint. And for one last time: NOBODY has the last word on Bach. Absolutely nobody.
If there's one thing I know about Bach, it's that he was an inveterate re-user and transcriber and transposer of music, and not always his own music. He had no qualms about taking a piece written for violin and giving it to human voice or vice versa. So feel free to play Bach on the piano. He won't judge you.
The first sensible assessment, and since J S Bach was a practical musician he would have no qualms. And, as he has been dead almost 274 years, he cant' judge anyone.
indeed that's right he transcribed his own violinconcerto's to Harpsichord concertos and vice versa.. he transcriped violinconcerto's from vivaldi to organ concerto's.. i fdon't use a pedal couse there were no pedals.... than DON'T PLAY IT ON A PIANO BUT ON A HARPSICHORD .............. You can use the pedal. nothing wrong with that. cause in Bach time there were no modern piano's and he didn't know the possibilties of it. Further : bach played it also on organ.. an organ tone don't die till you let the key.. yes you can and may use the pedal .. the first pianofortes had also 'pedals' that were levers... The hammerklavier had it to. so bull. use the pedal if you want.
I remember seeing this video when it was originally released (yes, it's an old vid 🙄) and beeing deeply unimpressed and unconvinced by his explanations. Maybe in 1723 this prelude was used for tuning but how is that relevant to a interpreting the music on a modern grand piano? I absolutely don't buy the theory that because the piece was used for tuning that should inform your tempo. The music should speak for itself.
I'm convinced that Bach would be totally amazed by modern interpretations of his work on the modern piano. The fact that he never wrote a single piano note in his entire life gives the interpret a great freedom. Personally, I can't stand the harpsichord. It gives me a tooth ache. I'm not so sure about equal temperament, though.
Re the rit: sounds good is good. Not sure why classical musicians are often obsessed with being period accurate. We are interpreting music in a world that has had decades and even centuries of innovation. Guess what...Bach also wouldnt play his works on a synthesizer. Who cares if we ritard a bit more than was "normal" (if we even actually know what that is). Same goes for pedaling, dynamics and all the rest. When Bobby Darin covered Mack the Knife he didnt say "gee Kurt Weill didnt have access to big band arrangements." Ravel was able to orchestrate Pictures at an Exhibition, employing instruments Mussorgsky wouldnt have had access to i.e. saxophone.
I agree, the "THIS IS THE WORST MISTAKE" thing was a bit much. I think the worst mistake with this piece is playing the whole thing completely even in phrasing, without emphasizing the different harmonies and moving tones...
There's a reason for performance practice (being period accurate), understanding the piece in context of its time. Do you what Italian Tempo J S Bach indicated for this composition, and the majority of both Well Tempered Claviers? J S Bach didn't use one, he used Tempo Ordinario, a practice mention 85 years before his birth, referenced by his student Kirnberger 26 years after his death, and 99 years after this collection saw the light of day Beethoven commented on the end of Tempo Ordinario (in reference to the Maezel Metronome). The practice used the Time signature, with variation dependent on note values (smaller subdivisions, then slower) and mode (minor slower than major). Common knowledge among musicians in German Speaking lands (Handel in a score in England; he used the term by name to distinguish between the speed and the speed of (Italian) Allegro. J S Bach wrote a Gigue in d minor Duple meter (for ease of writing) yet it is played in triple meter, he used the same practice in the Gigue he published in the e minor Partita ClavierUebung Pt 1. Or 1/8th note Triplets against a dotted 1/8 and a sixteenth note, the latter is played as 1/4 note and 1/8 triplet. A Triplet 1/8 against two 1/8 notes, played the same. Or How about an ornament in a phrase, which was understood, the phrase or similar phrases with at a different interval same note values, the ornament is played as it's understood, it was common practice. Same for cadential trills, the addition of ornaments, variation in the repeats (the variants with added notes, changes of harmonic content, etc.) was the rule, not the exception, and the fermata else where in a pieces was just to hold or pause, it was an invitation to extemporize a passage before continuing.. As to a rit. that was the players choice and individual decision was good so long as in good taste (bon gout). I won't even say too much on the tempi associated with the Suites beyond Allemande was a slow piece as was the Sarabande, the Courants were noble, but the Italian Correnti were fast virtuoso pieces, Minuets were faster than Haydn's time, Loures (slow Gigues) but you wouldn't know this unless you are concerned with period accuracy, change the tempo, change the character of the piece, but then most concert pianists don't seem to give a darn about this play almost everything too fast. Yet those who study period accuracy know, not that the audience cares after more than a century and half of trying to wow the audience with technique rather than to touch their hearts. Take the inventions of J S Bach, many are played way too fast by pianists, and the rules of Tempo Ordinario, which if you check of the 48 Preludes and Fugues you'd be hard pressed to find more than several in part one and part two which contain tempo indications are ignored, because the pianist didn't give a damn and only wanted to play fast, used the damper pedal. Listen the H. J. Lim's Well Tempered Clavier, the fastest on RU-vid with all the grossness of ignoring historical accuracy. Sounds more like a speeding train, a Caricature (a distorted presentation) then an artistic interpretation, dishonest to the Bach's intent. You might even like it, from your comment, however there's no accounting for taste. As to the modern piano, it has so evolved from the Cristofori or Silbermann instrument, it is no longer suited for J S Bach's Fugues. The Cross-strung strings rob the registers of their clarity and individual timbre. This even applies to the works of Liszt, Chopin, Schumann, and especially J. Brahms on the pianos he knew (except the gifted piano of Steinway too late in life) his works do not sound like mud and oil paint. If I could afford a Pleyel, an Erard, or Broadwood from the 19th century, I would purchase any one of these over the most expensive Steinway. However, I would rather purchase first purchase a harpsichord after Ruckers, or Hass, or Taskin to play the 17th and 18th century first, then a fortepiano of the time of Chopin, still for the 18th century. The difference is akin to the Last Supper as painted (besides the Fresco) rather than a reproduction of executed in Fluorescent Poster Paint on Velvet illuminated by a Black Light. Not sure why classical musicians are...obsessed with being period accurate? The above previous sentence is the reason why.
A lot of interesting ideas here. I like the clarification that Bach gives about writing pieces on every tone, rather than every key, although I'm not sure I'm in full alignment with the host because moments later he refers to Bach writing in "every key". To put it simply, he later writes in the key of C#, but within this book, he doesn't have a piece based in the key of Db (although he may sometimes visit that key). The idea of the piece being used to check a tuning is great too. However, that's not how I would play when checking a tuning. One specific example is how short the host plays the top notes. If I were checking the tuning of my instrument, I would want more space to listen to how those notes harmonize with the others. I wonder if this is a case of the pianist imagining what it's like to tune an instrument, but perhaps not having much experience doing so. I play guitar as a secondary instrument, and often tune by ear. I'm not particularly good at it, but I suspect that this pianist knows a lot of talented musicians who can tune their instruments very quickly. That would have a strong influence on our perceptions of how one would play to check the tuning of an instrument. I wonder if any historical scholars know of accounts of how long musicians would take to tune. edit: fixing a few small typos and grammatical errors to make this post easier to read.
J S Bach in the Eb minor Prelude changes to D# for the Fugue in his manuscript and all subsequent copies by students, relatives, and so forth followed suit.
How should Bach be played? Play it in a way you enjoy. Doing historical research is fine in an academic sort of way but on this topic its more guesswork than scientific.
I understood this easier once I started learning Thoroughbass. And I am transposing it into every tone, or key? My piano teacher is happy that I'm doing that.
Thank you for telling us stories about it. What importent how to play it. I think its importent to listen to the consonant and dissonant acords and to put attention to it by playing
If Bach had had a modern piano he would without a doubt, have employed all of its advantages to the maximum. There's no reason, as far as I can see, to assume that his music should always be played as he would have played it because he only wrote it that way due to the limitations of his time.
Agreed. He was a great musician and quite likely would have done what you mentioned as any musician would do, use the full potential of the instrument to perform the music as best as possible
i don't use a pedal couse there were no pedals.... than DON'T PLAY IT ON A PIANO BUT ON A HARPSICHORD .............. You can use the pedal. nothing wrong with that. cause in Bach time there were no modern piano's and he didn't know the possibilties of it. Further : bach played it also on organ.. an organ tone don't die till you let the key.. yes you can and may use the pedal .. the first pianofortes had also 'pedals' that were levers... The hammerklavier had it to. so bull. use the pedal if you want.
Please give me a real pianist : seymor... "don't use the pedal" Thats the most stupid answer every modern teacher gives. Also my own teacher did and I disagree fully. Bach was an interpreter. Not a composer or musician only no an interpreter and gave the reader, the musician all kinds of freedom to interprete his music as you want. He Transcribed his own violinconcerto's to Harpsichord concertos and vice versa.. he transcriped violinconcerto's from vivaldi to organ concerto's.. i fdon't use a pedal couse there were no pedals.... than DON'T PLAY IT ON A PIANO BUT ON A HARPSICHORD .............. You can use the pedal. nothing wrong with that. cause in Bach time there were no modern piano's and he didn't know the possibilties of it. Further : bach played it also on organ.. an organ tone don't die till you let the key.. yes you can and may use the pedal .. the first pianofortes had also 'pedals' that were levers... The hammerklavier had it to. so bull. use the pedal if you want.
Playing this iconic piece without pedal robs it of its harmonic resonance. It is SO much richer and fuller when played with pedal. I have zero doubt that if pianos with pedals had existed when Bach composed this piece, he would've used it from beginning to end.
Why not finger pedal (don't use the pedal, use 18th century performance practice of holding the notes in arpeggiated chords? That was the point of the video, how to play in the 1722 form and not 2022. " I have zero doubt that if pianos with pedals had existed when Bach composed this piece, he would've used it from beginning to end." A form of pedal existed as a stop that could only be turned on and off by hand in Silbermann's perfected pianos of 1742. At ten year's prior, J S Bach liked the tone, but the treble was too weak and the action was to heavy in the hand. Compared to a clavichord or a harpsichord, playing a modern piano's deep key-fall and heavy key weight is like driving nails with your fists.
Pedaling this piece changes its fundamental architecture to the point of rewriting the values. Feel free to play it any way you like, but do know you are just used to hearing this through the lens of modernism in the same way the paintings look so different in person vs only ever seeing them in print. You may prefer the printed version to the real thing.
@@Hornfancy I couldn't disagree more. Pedaling doesn't "change its fundamental architecture" in any way. The notes, chords, rhythm and harmonic structure remain the same. We'll have to agree to disagree.
There are academics and musicians. The latter try to bring the music of the compositions while the former are juggling into academic parables forgetting the important parts of what they are studying. If you wanna sound as baroque as possible, play a baroque instrument and don’t bother to look at the piano. The composer gave you something to create music and use the instrument as best as possible. Play Bach as if you were playing Chopin and play Chopin as if you pretend you were playing Bach. That’s a lot of freedom to play Bach but keep in mind that Bach music doesn’t admit exaggerations and over displays of emotions as people pretend to do when performing Chopin. Chopin was a great admire of Bach and his compositions always wink on Bach music. He was closer to the Bach era than us and might have known better how to play his music
It’s a litlle bit annoying how in many videos they promise to be sharing and revealing something really valuable and innovative and then stating the most obvious unoriginal things
The more I study history of music the less I agree with this kinds of videos, and don’t think I just memorized what a book said and accepted it as the truth, I’m passionate about it.
Mum has a virginal, wth 4 octaves and i cn c th argument but i do prefer playing bach on the piano, learning a chopin nocturne no.20 in C sharp minor at the moment though,
@@ThiloAbend yeah I'm fully aware of that dude mum had to get her spinet fixed but turned out to be too expensive, so she gave it too a close friend who could afford it, then nan died and she inherited nans virginal, and I waa very lucky to inherent nans yamaha clavinova,, either way the baroque period is absolutely my favorite period, i couldn't live without Bach, you take care ✌️🎹🎼🎵☮️
There is no such thing as "Bach's Piano music", beyond Liszt's Transcriptions or organ works, Saint Saens's transcriptions of Bach Cantatas or Busoni's Transcriptions of organ works (the Bösendorfer Model 290 Imperial, or Imperial Bösendorfer was built with the extra keys to down the previous low A on the piano to play octaves on this lowest C), J S Bach may have played a Silbermann Fortepiano on more than once (circa 1731 in which he criticized the action as too heavy and the treble volume too weak, circa 1742 when he approved of the corrections and Silbermann began sales, and the three (unless you are J N Forkel that exaggerated that number to 7 times that amount, but in his Musical Offering, J S Bach made no mention in the work, and other than acting as an agent for G. Silbermann for the sale of fortepiano in 1749, that's the only connection). For the "English Suites" and French Suites, the manuscripts state for the Harpsichord, the published Clavier Uebung Pt II (Italian Concerto, and the French Overture)harpsichord with two manuals), and the "Goldberg" Variations (harpsichord with two manuals), or his organ works published and in manuscript, or in the last decade of his life, J S Bach did write pieces idiomatic for the Lute Harpsichord, at that time his favorite instrument, which Silbermann's student the organ builder Hildebrant built two for Bach. The term Clavier was a generic term and also used for organ keyboards. Then there's the A minor Fugue in Well Tempered Clavier Pt 1, which is either for organ, pedal clavichord, pedal harpsichord, or an keyboard player with three hands or two players (a teacher) to play the last few measures of the fugue. To answer the question, without seeing the video, the prelude in C major 846 of the Well Tempered Clavier Pt one how to play the piece as in 1722 (there's an earlier version which is shorter in W F Bach's notebooklet circa 1720): Tune the piano to Werkmeister III temperament (Bach owned a copy of the 1691 publication of the well tempered which the list of J S Bach's library includes, all but one book lost), but not the posthumous 1706 "Werckmeister III: In Werckmeister III the fifths D-A, A-E, F♯-C♯, C♯-G♯, and F-C are narrowed by 1/4, and the fifth G♯-D♯ is widened by 1/4 comma. The other fifths are pure. This temperament is closer to equal temperament than the previous two. This is similar if it doesn't exactly match the 1759 description of C P E Bach's essay, In tuning the fifths and fourths...take away most (not all as in Equal Temperament) a barely noticeable amount of purity. Since this isn't possible for most individuals to re-tune their pianos...skip this (your ears and tonal memory will thank you). Use Grienpenkerl's decription of clavichord hand technique, taught to him by J N Forkel, who was taught this by J S Bach's oldest son, W F Bach. This can be found at wwkbank.harpsichord.be › Griepenkerl.pdf In short, Grienpenkerl describes the motion as similar to grasping, or one could better describe a relaxed fist (try clenching your fist tightly for 10 seconds then let go of the fist and let the hand relax. The tips of the fingers strike the keys and the finger retracts toward the palm to release the key...Quite a contrast the elongated flat finger, use the pad of the finger to strike the key. Discover that Bach omitted an Italian tempo mark, and used a system called tempo ordinario, for C (common time aka 4/4) which would be 1/4 note=60 bpm (Kirnberger, a student of J S Bach writes the same in the 1770's and Praetorius wrote the same in 1600, stating that everyone caries this with them (pulse rate). (Quartz used 80 bpm, the speed used at court for the music played for Frederick the Great, taken after lunch, he is the exception, not the rule). Czerny well known for his very fast Metronome marks (or are they) uses 1/4=112 for the C major Prelude (but Maezel, the inventor of the Metronome as we know it, stated that Beethoven, etc. used it incorrectly, and Czerny was a lifelong friend who wrote similarly to Beethoven's questioned Metronome marks). If one uses the note fastest notes values in Tempo Ordinario as a modifier, (the progressively smaller subdivisions of the 1/4 note would slow the tempo) which would be less than 60 bpm per quarter such as 56 bpm, which coincides with 1/2 of Czerny's indication and Czerny wrote that the term Allegro was played slower in Bach's day than when "currently". Next, either sit with your right leg wrapped around the piano bench, or just remember the means to lift the dampers, in Silbermann Fortepiano was similar to an organ stop; pushed on and off by hand, knee levels (found on much later harpsichords) or pedals (on English Harpsichords) come much later. You can over legato or "finger-pedal" the chords in Baroque performance practice, but Silbermann doesn't get around the Pantaleon (large dulcimer) exclusive Royal Patent granted to its inventor Pantaleon Heben-streit, the origin of the damper-raising register until 9 years after 1722. In other words, no piano pedals in J S Bach's prelude in 1722. Also, find an urtext (no editorial mark) edition. There's no indication as to phrasing, the low C in the penultimate (next to last) measure isn't tied in the earliest manuscript and, not tied too the last measure. There's a great deal of freedom in how you play the work, otherwise as to volume (unless you try to mimic the clavichord which at its loudest is piano, use the Una Corda pedal throughout, which was with the fortepiano from Cristofori's invention circa 1700); the single manual harpsichord there are some tricks of agogic stress, and sustaining a note into a second adjacent below and then releasing just after the pluck, however the prelude does not lend it self to this, one could vary the length of over-held notes; on a two manual harpsichord the left hand on one manual and the right hand on another...which you could switch between the manuals, but this piece in its simplicity and harmony doesn't need any of this, in fact from personal experience on a single manual harpsichord, the dynamic shifts are written into the piece by the composer. Have Fun!
It's interesting to contrast this Tonebase lesson with Seymour Bernstein's lesson on the same prelude: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8jvOyhAe6dg.html. Bernstein, also featured on Tonebase, uses ample pedal and a more expressive interpretation - including a noticeable ritard at the end. May Shinners forgive him for being "amateurish"!
I like Mr. Shinners pointing out what Bach has written on his frontispiece, and his ideas here seem sound, humane and musical. My own concept of this piece is still in flux after half a century of familiarity, but I have a feeling that Bach’s sense of economy would have this movement be an expression of not just one idea, but an overlapping world of them. The first version of this prelude is shorter, and is largely notated simile, and so with the earliest full length version iirc. It was first conceived as a didactic exercise but Bach is always looking for ways to get a bigger bang for his buck, hence its iconic inclusion in the first 24. That this is used to introduce one of the most sublime 4vv stretto fugues makes me think that the two pieces together might act as a grouping, as a prelude for the whole cycle (which has many other points of structural interest, and to illustrate “for connoiseurs and amateurs” that, yes, you can get from here to there. It’s the very essence of potential.
I think that bach would have liked the piano had he ever seen, heard, or used one. But, he would have written new pieces for it and used p f mf, etc. But i think bach loved the organ most, but b/c he used his own temperament, he only played pieces that fit the temperament on the organ he was in front of. He played the harpsichord most b/c he could retune it in 6 mins and could make the temperament match each piece easily. I do not think any extant bach pieces belong on any non baroque instrument including piano.
Could you please tell me what piece it was that Jeanne played to delay Werner from leaving the house in the 2004 production of the movie Le Silence de la Mer?
No discussion of temperament? Which is what the reference to the major and minor thirds is all about. And when the thirds on the piano being played are not really thirds, so couldn't be used for tuning.
What would Bach do? First off, he would certainly not butcher his name and twist it into "Back" like so many Americans do while thinking it is terribly funny. You actually did a pretty good job with the pronunciation, which is the first step towards respecting Bach.
You aren’t playing the piano if you don’t use the pedal. Doesn’t matter if you play Bach, if he was playing a piano he would undoubtedly use pedal with his own music.
