The Art-Music, Literature and Linguistics Forum
March 28, 2024, 03:06:18 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Here you may discover hundreds of little-known composers, hear thousands of long-forgotten compositions, contribute your own rare recordings, and discuss the Arts, Literature and Linguistics in an erudite and decorous atmosphere full of freedom and delight.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

How differently different people play the same music . . .

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How differently different people play the same music . . .  (Read 560 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
guest2
Guest
« on: May 19, 2009, 04:26:39 pm »

A little unfinished business from the Purcell thread:

I don't think the ideal peformance is one which reproduces what the composer would have heard, but one which best reveals the music, given that music is an idea behind the sound used to convey it. I think that is best achieved by taking a completely fresh look at the music in the context of the composer's life and personality (what we know of it) to try to discover what the psychological  premise is. Daniel Barenboim's recording of Bach's 48 preludes and fugues is an example of this approach . . .

It is interesting that you should say that, Smittims, because on the old R3ok forum there was a long discussion about each of Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues in turn (also about his Clavierübung III), and a lot of it consisted of comparisons between different performers on both the harpsichord and the piano.

Barenboim's name came up in relation to his performance of the three-part Fugue in E major from Book I. The general opinion there was that a) his performance was so rushed as to be little more than a blur, b) that the fine bouncing bass line at the end was completely lost, and c) that in the left-hand part of bar 24 he plays two notes which were later corrected by Bach, as seen in the Urtext edition. (I am combining remarks made by two of the members there, with very different backgrounds.)

and

I didn't see that discussion, but that is the first unfavourable remark I've seen of the Barenboim recording which has won considerable praise elsewhere.

I've just listened to it again and I have to say I find his tempo ideal, and his emphases bring out just the right rigour and tension of the piece.  I've compared him also with the interpretations I consider the great ones: Edwin Fischer, Walter Gieseking , Wanda Landowska and Rosalyn Tureck and I have to put him firmly in  their company. I'd be very surprised to find a performance which gave more satisfaction.

So here for members to compare are nine performances of Bach's E major fugue from Book I of his Forty-Eight, including all those referenced above.

First performance
Second performance
Third performance
Fourth performance
Fifth performance
Sixth performance
Seventh performance
Eighth performance
Ninth performance

There are six pianists, two harpsichordists, and one odd electronic version.

Most of the pianists are rather fast aren't they, and some even fumble!

I'll reveal the names to-morrow.

One thing I might say now, though, is that Bach's two dotted quaver figures in bars 26 and 27 (just before the end) are an indication that he intended the bass line to be clearly heard!

[By the way, this thread is intended not just for Bach, but for any composer whose works are played in a variety of different ways.]
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Paul
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2009, 10:00:10 am »

And nine quite different personalities Gerard! Obviously (to me anyway) the one that stands above all the others is no. 2 - a performance that can only have been given by the harpsichordist Gustav Leonhardt!

This is clear because of the intelligent flexibility shown that manages in no way to interfere with the continuously-dynamic rhythm. (Note, for instance, the slight, almost imperceptible, 'lingering' upon the 6th note of the subject - a 'lingering' that clarifies immediately the logical phrasing and harmonic impetus, even though at this point only a single line is presented. Such subtle flexibilities are to be noted throughout the performance, and demonstrate a complete intelligence in and understanding of Bach's melodic and harmonic thinking.) We also hear in this performance an instrument of high quality wherein an ever-present but gentle resonance arises from an instrument which vibrates in complete sympathy with itself.

By contrast the other harpsichordist (no. 5 - clearly Wanda Landowska) delivers a tinny and colourless performance. Although her playing is again at about the correct tempo her response to the feel and sound of her instrument is mechanical, showing little subtlety in the phrasing or melodic articulation. But this is because she is again using her heavily-strung and iron-framed Pleyel harpsichord. This always (to me) sounds only like a tin box full of paper clips.

The only other performance offered that comes anywhere near the standards shown in the previous two is no. 9 - rendered by a computer using synthesised sounds. Although (being a computer) all the key-velocities are identical (yielding thereby virtually no phrasing at all) the person who created it fully understood the piece. The tempo is exactly right, and there is only a gentle slowing down at the end to 'place' the final chord. The only actual error (as such) is the third note in the LH at bar 17, where an A# is offered instead of an A-natural (giving a strangely 'Purcellian' effect).

The rest (all piano performances) are in varying degrees truly dismal! In particular, no. 6 shows a technical ability severely lower in quality than is required by the type of performance envisaged. We note in particular whole clumps of inaccuracies in the rhythm and counterpoint at (especially) bars 9-10, 15-16, 22 and 28.

All the piano performances are far too fast! This is probably because pianists are accustomed to believing that a piece comprising multiple groups of semiquavers must - by default - be fast unless the composer marks it Lento (or similar) - which of course is seldom the case with Baroque music. So instead of being a piece that merely flows melodically, they are inclined to present it more like a 'Scherzo' intended to 'show off' the player's technique, as if it were only a Study. Well, they should have understood that it is a fugue, and accorded it the respect needed in order to reveal the ingenuity of its melodic and contrapuntal eloquence. Excessive speed can only count against the attainment of this goal.
Report Spam   Logged
guest2
Guest
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2009, 02:23:18 pm »

Thanks to member Paul for taking the trouble to sample all those versions.

The players of the first eight versions are as follows:

First performance - Daniel Barenboim (piano)
Second performance - Gustav Leonhardt (harpsichord)
Third performance - Rosalyn Tureck (piano)
Fourth performance - Edwin Fischer (piano)
Fifth performance - Wanda Landowska (harpsichord)
Sixth performance - Walter Gieseking (piano)
Seventh performance - Glenn Gould (who is not in the MGG at all! - piano)
Eighth performance - Samuel Feinberg (piano)

I must say I do agree with member Paul in preferring Leonhardt's version, and in the rest of what he writes; all in all is not clarity the sine qua non of music?
Report Spam   Logged
guest2
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2009, 10:29:30 am »

Rather a good analysis of this E major fugue appears in Hermann Keller's book on the Well-Tempered Clavier (translated by Mr. Gerdine):


It will be seen in particular that the bass line near the end was not Bach's first version. He worried about it! It should also be evident from the detailed nature of Keller's discussion why I find that the performances of all those pianists fall short; indeed one could listen to Barenboim's a hundred times and still not have picked out the precise constitution of that bass line.
Report Spam   Logged
Paul
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2009, 07:39:06 am »

I agree with member Gerard - clarity certainly must be the sine qua non at least in this kind of music. Tovey also agrees - when speaking specifically of this fugue he writes "The tempo is as lively as clearness permits". This implies that the tempo should be quaver=96 to 104 (although Keller suggests the crazy speed of crotchet = 96 to 104, which would generate a speed in excess even of some of the above piano performances). When played more quickly (as in the piano performances offered above) contrapuntal clarity suffers - to the point (in one of the performances) where clear fistfuls of errors can be identified in specific detail only by repeated and concentrated listenings!

Tovey does not, however, agree with Keller's overall view of the fugue's structure; while Keller sees it as a fully-formed fugue with double exposition, Tovey (more correctly in my view) regards is only as a "Fughetta" (i.e. a fugue on a small scale). As is common with fughettas, the themes are often shorter, and the entries invariably occur with closer stretto presentation than is found in conventional 'text-book' fugues. For that reason Tovey expresses his disregard of any importance over the matter of exactly where the subject ends (in contrast to Keller).

Moreover, Keller's view that since the subject continues into bar 3 this places it "in the category of those that modulate to the dominant" is questionable: if his first example (above) is examined there is no evidence whatsoever of a modulation to the dominant, but rather a close on the dominant within the home key. The only effect of dominant tonality is - of course - created by the entrance of the Answer itself above this (which, in accordance with normal fugal practice, makes its answer in the dominant). Furthermore, the idea that the Subject continues into bar 3 is, surely, negated by the statement that occurs at bar 9 (bass) which does not in fact continue for that further bar.

With regard to the reworking of the bass (bars 24 ff) Tovey's account seems more plausible than Keller's. While the latter sees the change in terms of eliminating previous compositional shortcomings (i.e. parallel diminished and perfect 5ths), the former views it in terms of making a stronger allusion to the opening idea of the Subject. The problem with Keller's view is that since (as he states) such parallels would have been barely noticeable this explanation does not have the structural rationale offered by Tovey. Bach's stronger bass line here - as the piece approaches its final statements - creates an on-the-surface and tangible connection with the Subject that perfectly rounds off the movement.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 09:04:24 am by Paul » Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy