Aldo Ciccolini's Nocturnes

Dear Tones

You seem to have forgotten our discussion of the very topic last month in the thread "Sony CD-players and french CDs"
in this forum (Classical) already. Though your point of view is very
salomonic, I have to stress that I never pretended to know
if Bach may or must not be played on piano. You are wery welcome to play or listen to Bach on piano, but you must realize
that the message is very different on piano respectively harpsichord and that the harpsichordrendering is more true to the composer. This depends on the totally different construction and playing-tecnique of the piano compared to the harpsichord and often the different premises of the performers too.

Imagine a lonely island on earth only with access to a harpsichord. Suddenly the ocean has blessed them with a bag containing scores of pianomusic by Brahms on the strand. Now, what do they do? They play Brahms on the harpsichord. They have no other choice. Do you think they can do that witout altering the message totally?

I often feel that pianofanatics ( I think not of you ) behave as if they lived on a desert island with access only to pianos.

Your parallel with the trumpet is not quite adequate, because on a baroque tromba you still produce the tones with your lips against a similar mouthpiece and use a conic, curved metaltube to amplify the sound like a modern trumpet. These tecniques are not at all so different as the differences between piano and harpsichord-tecnique.

And I dont understand why people regard the harpsichord as a historic instrument, all the same we have lots of music written for it. The drum and probably the trombone fx were invented earlier in history than the harpsichord. Are the historic instruments in that sense? and why not?

I think that many people reject the harpsichord because they did not grow up with it, -almost the same reason why some people reject PC. It is unfamilar, unusual, and faced with such things we often are liable to more unpractical or inferior solutions, which we think are easier or more safe.

Venlig hilsen

 

As a Bach lover and complete idiot, I once borrowed the Perahia Goldbergs from the library and listened. Didn't like it at all then. Bach on the piano is difficult to do really well. Schiff's and Perahia's Bach concerto records are good. Steuerman is cool and elegant and reminds me of expensive Swiss watches and Armani suits.
Harpsichord is not more true to Bach if the piano player plays better.

 

Ohoops - this is supposed to be Chopin thread... How about Nocturnos on the harpsichord - has that been tried yet?

 

Dear Bat

1) The Bach-pianoconcert-recordings of Shiff and Peraiha are good because they use modern string-ensemble and the best balance to this is a piano....! Or they rather use modern strings because they want to use piano. Former times showed it unwise to combine harpsichords with modern strings. E.g.: The Karl Richter recordings. Period harpsichords need a small ensemble of period strings for balance. And piano with period strings would sound absurd.

2) I prefer a good pianist to a bad harpsichordist, but I prefer also a good harpsichordist to a good pianist. There are many good harpsichordists - so the choice is easy.

Venlig hilsen

 

THE PIANO-HARPSICHORD DEBATE: MY OPINION

I was planning to post about the piano versus harpsichord problem in the thread pe-zulu mentioned. But as it is coming up again, and that some kind people expressed the sentiment that my opinion could have some merit (why the hell am I writing in this damn silly way?) here is what I really think on the subject.

The problem is different whether you are considering Bach or not. Couperin does need a late 17th century French harpsichord, with strong and vibrant basses and a beautifully mellow middle. It is - I feel, unthinkable to play Froberger or Frescobaldi on the piano - and even the recent Hewitt record of Couperin (François I mean) on the piano, even if it is a Faziolli, is nice rather than convincing.

Why? Because this kind on music very strongly relies on two things no piano can do: brilliant chords that generate beautiful difference tones (that is: added brilliance and depth) and a perfectly transparent texture. Moreover, the music up to Fischer and Bach was played on unequal tuning which is quite alien to piano technique and extraordinarily beautiful on the harpsichord. This is because the harpsichord has so many overtones: with equal tuning the harmonics generated by the strings themselves clash with the chords and intervals; this is not a real problem in the piano because all pianos (from the start) were duller sounding than harpsichords and, therefore, one may quite satisfactorily use equal tuning (the octave is divided in 12 exactly equal semitones, which are, of course, different from the harmonic partials generated by each string, whereas in an unequally tempered keyboard you have to chose which intervals are right and which is wrong).

This has a very important consequence in music up to the end of the 17th Century/ early 18th Century. Some tonalities sound beautiful (c major, f major, d minor, g minor) whereas others sound upsettingly stressed and distorted (f minor, or b minor; more alien tonalities (with more sharps/flats) are totally impossible (a# major, for instance).

So, when a piece is written in f minor (as Louis Couperin's Pavane, for instance) one should expect a kind of harmonic distortion that functions in the same way a very dissonant chord does.

The case of Bach is different. Not only he does not use the harpsichord possibilities to their limit (there are exceptions, and quite a few: the Chromatic Fantasy, several pieces from WTC I and, of course, the partitas and suites) but his music seems quite independent of the medium used. But I still prefer it on the harpsichord.

To begin with, the incredibly fast response of the harpsichord generates a lot of energy that allows middle voices to be heard clearly. That makes polyphony very understandable (as what we really listen to except in the upper and lower voices is the note attack). For instance, the Art of Fugue is clearer when played on the harpsichord (even if it has some parts in very long notes) than the organ.

All this seems to be pointing to the advantages of the harpsichord.

But pianists always say that it is quite impossible to make a voice stand out in the harpsichord because of the lack of dynamics. Now there is some dynamics in the harpsichord, but it is so subtle that pianists simply discard it. Moreover, the fact that the attacks are so clear makes it possible to play with the micro agogics: you can delay a note by a tiny fraction of a second (I mean by about 1/10 of a second, or more if you really want to make the difference clearly audible). In the piano this is feasible, but the effect is the one Saint-Sens explored when mimicking the elephant in Animals Carnival: it merely appears that you are not precise and are creating a muddle.

But I cannot deny that you can bring out a fugue theme in the piano - for instance, when the first note appears in the middle of a chord - whereas this is quite impossible to do on the harpsichord. This is true, but, as Pe-Zulu has pointed out I think in another thread, that is not the way polyphony works. Polyphony, one must never forget it, is a compositional technique, not a theme catching game. When the same theme appears over and over again (as, for instance, in the much cited Bach Doric fugue) it is completely impossible to bring it out every theme. And, for instance, in the c# minor fugue of WTC I, even with a piano, it is quite impossible to separate the theme and the second countersubject (or the third theme) when they appear in the bass in stretto (I can check where exactly, if requested).

That simply means that the harpsichordists knows it is there; other people will recognise that there is something familiar going on - they will recognize the general rhythmical structure and the harmonic content that results from the theme presence, and nothing more. This is true for every instance of counterpoint I know. The Art of Fugue is a good example, but better ones are to be found in Palestrina, Ockeghem and, of course, Machault (Ma fin est mon commencement).

What I mean is: when listening to counterpoint one doesn't have to listen to every entry (as a matter of fact, it would be quite unmusical to do so): what is important is the overall thematic unity.

What about dynamic changes - I mean audible and progressive ones? Quite simply that is completely alien to the spirit of the music written for harpsichord. Take, for instance, the Angela Hewitt Well Tempered Clavier: she uses dynamics freely, and the pieces take a huge an Technicolor appearance that I find completely alien to the scores. Of course one may like it that way. But I personally frown a little: Bach is about tension and release, not about loudness. When Bach wants a louder sound he simply doubles the voices. Quoting again from the Doric fugue, there is a mysterious 5th voice that appears, if I remember correctly in the tenor, doubling it in thirds. I always though that too much fuss was made about that: the reinforcement (in thirds) it is quite frequently used by Bach (Even in the Art of Fugue, where we are talking about rigorous counterpoint): This simply means that Bach wanted that particular bit to be listenable. Another good example, this time not from counterpoint is the WTC I b flat minor prelude: it has a powerful crescendo before a pause. Surely, one must play it on the piano (the clavichord in Bach's day was only a cheap alternative - a study instrument; you just have to play one to understand why: when you play you listen to the sound; nobody else further than a circle of about two meters does). But a good harpsichordist (and a good harpsichord) can work wonders: just listen to Gilbert's version, or even to the Leonhardt one (Gilbert's harpsichord does have a lot of dynamics, whereas Leonhardt's has only a slight possibility of accenting the attacks).

Also, it is quite evident that the thinning or thickening of harmonic structure is used precisely in that fashion. For instance, the great g minor fugue (from the organ Fantasia and Fugue) is a four voice fugue. Bach increases and decreases the number of voices therefore creating dynamic differences. The same happens with the Passacaglia (admittedly, that is not strictly speaking rigorous counterpoint, but it is counterpoint nonetheless).

Now I surely wished the harpsichord has a little more dynamics - to make a chord stand out, for instance, but you can fake it by means of articulation silences before the chord.

Lastly, as cogently said by Pe-Zulu, harpsichord playing (as organ playing) is not strictly speaking legato. That has two reasons. An old harpsichord has a lot of resonance. If you play a chord and then release the notes, you will listen to the reverberance within the box (old harpsichords had closed bottoms, so the case functions as a huge sound reservoir. In an organ, not only a pipe does not stop ringing after the key is released (but for a very short time and chiefly in the larger pipes) but the reverberance makes it imperative that you clear the way to the next note. As far as I know, except for very quick passages, there is no such thing as true legato on the organ. In the piano this does not happen: you damp the string and the sound stops. A détaché style of playing always sounds wrong to me (let alone the bizarre way of playing of Rosalynd Truck or Glenn Gould).

What about pedals, then? In old music one should avoid it at all costs, pianists usually say. I definitely don't agree. This is because you often use what is commonly called overlegato in the harpsichord. That is, after the melody has passed over the notes, you leave certain of them put in order to strengthen the tone colour. I don't mean you have to do it. But just play the first prelude of WTC 1 and you will understand the need. Moreover, a piano without the use of pedals sounds too dull - it was never meant to sound that way.

Further still. 'Piano allows tone colouring whereas harpsichord does not. That is totally silly. A double harpsichord usually has at least 3 registers. This allows, for instance, to play a sarabande (many from the English suites, the 6th from the French ones, and the marvellous 6th from the partitas) with all registers engaged, so as to be piercingly desperate, but without shouting. In the piano you must play them piano - which means they do not sound desperate but merely sad - otherwise you'll get a very odd effect. That is to say, you can only have real brightness when playing forte (because the felts act more quickly on the strings and therefore they do not muffle the sound so much). This is a very severe limitation when playing period music: if you want brightness you must have loudness; whereas in a harpsichord you may have brightness and not a very loud sound (but beware: a good harpsichord has a lot of sound!).

My last word on harpsichord resources is the fact that you can actually play with the attacks. If you have both unisons engaged, if you press your finger slowly down (a very difficult thing to do, but Leonhardt masters that craft) the sound will be different from the one obtained when pressing fast.

Admittedly, I'm stressing the harpsichord capabilities and not the piano ones. That happens because I know the harpsichord very well and have not set hands on a piano for about a decade. Pianists will defend their instrument with better arguments because they know the instrument better. But I am not completely ignorant about pianos: I used to play a Steinway when I was young. So I know how magnificent an instrument it is.

My position is therefore very clear: I by far prefer a harpsichord version of harpsichord music than a piano one.

Of course some pianists can do wonders. One such pianist is Murray Perhaya (spelling?). I wouls say his best recording is the English suite series (far better, I think, than the Goldbergs [but then, I really never liked the Goldbergs; as pe-zulu doesn't either, is there a problem for organists to like them?)]. His playing only relies on flow, tension and release. That is, I think, the essence of Bach's harpsichord music. I posted something about it at the Naim music room, but I can't find the thread offhand. He achieves it masterfully. But did you all know that he has a harpsichord and practices his Bach touch on it?

Finally. I am definitely not against playing Bach on the piano. I quite like some interpretations. And I wait eagerly for Pollini's version (it has been announced). And also for the Perahya one (it has not been announced, I think). When a great artist really makes music alive I couldn't care less for organological [=referring to instruments] considerations.

Truth is: no one really knows what kind of harpsichord Bach liked. Yes, he liked the Mietkes, but no one knows how they sounded. Most harpsichordists use a 'Mietke copy'. But is it a copy of an unadulterated Mietke? Of course not. No one even knows if the original instrument had brass strings (a very mellow sound) or plain iron ones (a strong, brilliant sound). I personally like French instruments. They sound better than German ones. Period, as far as I am concerned.
The 'Bach-organ' is better known. It is thought to be illustrated by the Wenzelkirche in Naumburg (Hildebrandt, probably with a specification drawn by Bach himself). It sounds very well (a monster organ: quite outscores a big Arp Schnitger in terms of power and even brilliance). Also the famous Alterbruch Treutmann is thought as a Bach organ. It is a splendid instrument. What about the Silbermnanns? Bach said that Silbermann deserved his name because the organs sounded like silver. But that his mixtures, in big churches, were too low. I quite agree with that. Nevertheless, they are so beautiful. We know he liked powerful mixtures and 32' foundations in the pedals. Does that mean one can only play Bach in such organs. Not at all. I personally like Bach best in smallish organs in a rather dry acoustic. Counterpoint is clearer and all the toucher nuances are understandable.

So, even if I favour the harpsichord on musical reasons, I quite accept and even like piano performances. As far as the spirit of the music is preserved, I feel quite content.

One last comment. Nobody has touched it yet. Most harpsichords are very badly rendered in most hifi systems. Either they are too bright, too closely miked, too harsh, and so on. A real harpsichord usually is a sweet sounding, crisp and very precise instrument. It is never really loud, but when talking to someone who is turning the pages for you, you definitely have to raise your voice. CDs usually take out some of the brilliance, although this is not crucial. The crucial point is resolution: a harpsichord (as, indeed, an organ) needs great harmonic resolution, otherwise it will sound hard. So you have to actually have listened to some harpsichords live to reach a decision.

A huge post, I know, but you know me by now...

 

No; the compass will not allow it. But some Microcosmos Bartok pieces were. The effect is very interesting. And today I had a little Rachmaninov played on the harpsichord. Best of all, sometimes ago, I had Ravel played on it. The sound is more beautiful. But otherwise it is just very funny.

 

Actually, dear Tones, even when you use an old trumpet, old violins and a recorder, when listening live, you must struggle to listen to the recorder... and the trumpet will stand out.

I feel the same about bach's violin and harpsichord. The violinist must play really soft (and therefore what you get is a very uggly violin sound: gut must be energetically played, I feel) in order to the harpsichordist's right hand to be understood as a companion to the violin.

Bach liked experimenting a lot. But not always with entirely satisfactory results.

:yikes: Shock, horror, me saying that, I now. But every major composer made blunders no one acknowledges. :MILD:

 

This Chopin thread is very odd! And it was my fault! I brought Pérotin in!

I think the Hilliard version will be better. I'll get it tomorrow. The Binchois I don't know, but you are right. Pérotin with female voices is almost a perversity. Perhaps they do it with countertenors. Any link to the Binchois record?

 

Dear pe-zulu

I never listened to Rübsam on the piano, but I have known people who did and liked it very much. It seems that he is full of passion. Or so I heard.

Music and architecture. No, I really cannot understand the connection. I thought I found it yesterday, in book painting.

But I explained it today to a young friend (she sang Machault) and she seemed quite unconvinced...

But I am working on it. By the way, I can listen to nothing but Machault, these days. I am becoming totally obsessed with his odd music making... It has a kind of magic that draws me into it. I can't understand it really well. It is so different from Dufaÿ's music... [by the way, that is why I did not listen to Walcha's doric fugue yet - I do apologize, but I seem to be mesmerized by Machault.

I don't think there is a way of uploading images, otherwise I'd try to explain what connection I think I found. I even found (did I ???) a kind of pictoric equivalent to the hoquetus.

I think you are quite right on the question of the non-legato. I explained my opinion at some length (that's a huge understantment!) above.

 

Oh, sorry:

A Faziolli sounds much more brilliant and transparent than a Steinway. It also seems softer, but I believe it has huge reserves of power. There is no muddling of the tenor zone. Quite good for polyphony, and a much nicer sonority than the more standard pianos, IMO.

 

dear Tom:

Thank you for the on topic post (this seems to be one of the very few). I'll try to listen to the Rév recordings. Trouble is, as I think you know, I am not too fond of Chopin either...

 

about bach's violin and harpsichord, Robert Stallman's flute recording of them (with harpsichord) has IMO a very good balance between instruments

 

Of course I have! I never keep track of these things. And I'm always completely consistent about being completely inconsistent. Just ask RdS; he'll tell you.

Now there I hope you don't mean me, because I don't think of the harpsichord as a historic instrument. I like the sound of the harpsichord, but I also like the sound of the piano, and Bach on the piano sounds fine to me, another way of hearing great music. This might well be a side-effect of not being musically educated at all, but we all have to live with our deficiencies.

 

Dear RdS

Thank you so much for your contribution above, offering us so
much insight into some important aspects of harpsichord tecnique.

Especially concerning tuning and resonating partials I would like to ask how you think Bach tuned his harpsichord for playing the WTC. I do not believe a second that he used equal tuning. Primarily beause it would hamper the instrumental resonance,
secondly because it would deprive the different modes their distinctive character. Maybe he used different tunings for C-major and Fis-Major? What do you think would be the most useful solution?

I agree fully with you that the clavichord was an instrument for education and practise. Just the volume speaks its own language, you could practise without disturbing the neighbour at night.
Well some pieces can be played on clavichord to some effect, jfr Chorzempas WTC. On the other hand I disagree when you write that Bachs music seems independant of the medium used. I think that almost all Bachs harpsichordmusic is typical harpsichordmusic, this holds true for the Suites, Partitas,
WTC, Goldbergs, Toccatas manualiter, Concertos manualiter and so on. I see only the organ as an alternative in some pieces, and quite a few (Inventions, some WTC, and Fantasia and Fugue BWV 904).

As to legato non-legato you have explained the tecnical basis
very clearly, but I think there is a musical reason for the non-legato. Compare an organ to a recorder fx. An useful comparation, since all the labials are some sort of recorders.
On a recorder you will normally attack every note individually - not for acoustical reasons, but for musical reasons. We would frown if we heard a recorderplayer play notes in long tied bows.
In the same way an organist must attack and articulate every note individually , to create musical sense. Because the articulation is the most crucial point in making music. And this non-legato touch (Ordentliche Fortgehen) is almost impossible on piano as you have explained, it will sound dull or harsh on a piano, and not at all elegant as on a harpsichord.

You mention overlegato, an interesting detail. As to the Prel.C-major WTC I, I view every halfbar as an individual arpeggio. You may for yourself transpose the last three semiquavers in each half bar an octave upwards, this resulting in an arpeggio over just over 2 octaves. I think this is how it was intended, and consequently each halfbar should be played "overlegato".
In the first bar of the Partita 6 the e-minorchord
should probably be held until the second high G to make an arpeggioaccord, and not just an ascending e-minor triad.
The high G sounds terribly bare alone up there. And you must hold the tritonus accord in the next bar in the same way.
In the first bar of the Chromatic Fantasy I think you have to hold the e,g,cis and e in the third group of demisemiquavers. And hold the d,f,a,d,f likewise in the next bar, to accentuate the natural resonance from the instrument. Maybe I am mad, but I think it should sound in that way.

As to Bachs violin-harpsichordsonatas (and flute-harpsichord sonatas) there is a serious acoustical problem. I have several times heard some of the pieces performed with organ and violin/flute. This solves the balanceproblem completely. But
since Bach prescribed Harpsichord this is not a common practise.

This was my spontaneous reactions to your comprehensive
post, perhaps more will follow.

Venlig hilsen

 

Dear Tones
I too like the sound of the piano, when it is about pianomusic
(Beethoven, Brahms, Bartok et.c.) but not for Bach. For Bach the harpsichord is far superior.

Venlig hilsen

 

I am sure that the whole point of the WTC was that he could write pieces in every key and it would work. Therefore I'm sure he was using equal temperament, to suggest otherwise negates the whole point doesn't it?

I would disagree entirely with this as baroque trumpets didn't have valves, and modern ones did. Baroque trumpeter produced different pitches using only their lips. The valved trumpet didn't come along till much later, and the importance of the lips in producing the pitch lessened.

 

Dear Lord Summit
1)Perhaps you are right, this is the reason for my question to RdS.
I am very curious to read his answer.
2)The fundamental clarinotecnique is as I wrote. The valves of the modern trumpet are only inserted after the lips and the mouthpiece so the tones are principally formed with the lips in both cases.
Venlig hilsen (danish for friendly greetings)

 

Dear RdS
A little correction to my post above:
In the first bar of the Cromatic Fantasi you have to hold the notes : d,g,b,e and not e,g,cis,e as I wrote. Excuse me - lapse of memory.
Venlig hilsen

 

same for me (I wrote it somewhere's else in this forum).

 

Did you listen to the Hilliard yet?
Anyway, Binchois is available on Cantus Records -- sadly no clips available, but the "Chant des Cathedrales" is not very expensive as a 2-CD box set.
Organum are the most interesting IMHO - or perhaps I should say the most satisfying somehow:
Ensemble Organum site
My favourite "Jazz-Classical" label Alpha-Prod has also released this



as well as some Buxtehede, which may or may not be of interest. Whichever, they'll be arriving in the post shortly....