Bach's hardest piano works. List them!

[12tone]

*Thanks to Lance for thread inspiration*


In all of Bach's keyboard works (in other words no works that include another instrument) which do you think are the hardest? With thanks to Lance for the inspiration, I thought it would be interesting to see which works you think are the hardest. I'm guessing some of you people here are musicians so...

Anyway, list all that you know starting at the top (least hard) and work your way to #1 (hardest, trickiest and most complicated). Your list could be 5 long, 10 long or 20 works long...depends on how much you know.

So which do you think? Are the English Suites harder than the French? GBv's harder than the WTC books? Or will the TAoF come out at #1?

Please list away pianists!

[karlhenning]

Well, I don't see people rushing to program the Concerto nach Italienischem Gusto much, but maybe I'm just looking the wrong way :-)

Anyway, I exult in the macaronic title of the BWV 971

[dzalman]

Anyway, list all that you know starting at the top (least hard) and work your way to #1 (hardest, trickiest and most complicated). Your list could be 5 long, 10 long or 20 works long...depends on how much you know.

What's the point of your question?

[Lance]

Anyway, list all that you know starting at the top (least hard) and work your way to #1 (hardest, trickiest and most complicated). Your list could be 5 long, 10 long or 20 works long...depends on how much you know.

What's the point of your question?

I believe it is to determine what keyboardists feel are the most difficult for them to perform on an individual basis. What is relatively easy for one becomes the most difficult for the next.

Let me just start by going directly to the hardest to play (IMHO) and is also the most difficult to listen to. 12tone hit the nail on the head: The Art of the Fugue. I'll come back later to fill in the blanks.

[dzalman]

What's the point of your question?

I believe it is to determine what keyboardists feel are the most difficult for them to perform on an individual basis. What is relatively easy for one becomes the most difficult for the next.

Let me just start by going directly to the hardest to play (IMHO) and is also the most difficult to listen to. 12tone hit the nail on the head: The Art of the Fugue. I'll come back later to fill in the blanks.

I didn't think there was a keyboardist in existence that wouldn't name the Goldberg Variations as the most difficult keyboard work by far that Bach ever wrote. And doubly difficult when performed on a single keyboard instrument.

[markhedm]

There are several reference books that grade the difficulty of keyboard works. Bach taught many students, and he wrote teaching pieces for them. Generally this is the order for these.

the Anna Magdalena Bach book,
then the Little Preludes and Fugues,
then the Two-Part Inventions
then the Three-Part Inventions
then the French Suites
then the WTC 1.

The French Suites are easier than the English Suites.
WTC 1 is easier than WTC 2.
At the advanced level, I am not sure how Bach's works rank in difficulty. There are the Partitas, Toccatas, Italian Concerto, Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue.
Re Goldberg Variations, this might be the longest keyboard work by Bach if played in its entirety (whether he intended it or not), it can last 60 minutes or longer if the repeats are taken.
However, many of the variations are not difficult technically. There was an article in the American Music Teacher magazine, Apr/May 2005, that ranked the order of difficulty of each variation. Some of the variations are as easy as the Inventions.
Probably there are some organ works that are more difficult than any of the other keyboard works.
Grading the difficulty of the works is useful for teachers and performers, but the reference works will not always agree on the grading. Sometimes a work can be technically easy, but difficult to interpret.


Mark H.

[davidreece]

Well, the thread title is a poor choice. Bach wrote nothing for the "piano."

[12tone]

Well, the thread title is a poor choice. Bach wrote nothing for the "piano."

Oops, you are right!

[markhedm]

Charles Rosen considered the Musical Offering the greatest piano composition of the Millenium. He wrote in his essay on the keyboard music of Bach and Handel: "The two ricercars are the only works of Bach, that pianists are entitled, with any historical justification, to claim as their own." "...Frederick the Great, to whom it was dedicated, would have listened to it played on a pianoforte. Pianists should be more jealous of their first masterpiece, still one of their greatest."

But elsewhere in the essay, Rosen asserts that there was a "relatively limited number of works intended for a specific instrument," that keyboard music was adaptable to any keyboard instrument of the time, including the pianoforte, invented in 1720.

[Werner]

But quite a few people play Bach on the piano, don't they? (Let's not get into THAT argument!)

[karlhenning]

... greatest piano composition of the Millenium ....

Now there's a useful musical category!

[markhedm]

Rosen wrote an article on the Greatest Piano Composition of the Millenium for the New York Times. It was part of the Times coverage of the Millenium - they had many articles on the great events, achievements, etc. of the Millenium around the year 2000, and this was Rosen's contribution. It was on their website at one time, but I don't see it anymore.

Mark H.

[Holden Fourth]

Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue

[dulcinea]

What is the proper style for playing Bach on the piano? I have often noticed that, when played on an obviously anachronistic modern piano, Bach is made to sound orotund and pompous in a manner that brings to mind the painfully garish and tasteless orchestrations of Beecham, Respighi, Schonberg and Stokowsky.

[Werner]

This statement is in itself so orotund, pompous and garish that is has a long way top go to match the quality of musicmaking - or the intelletual level - of a Beecham, Stokowski, or any other great musicians of the past or present that you haven't yet thought of.

[dzalman]

What is the proper style for playing Bach on the piano?

The proper style for playing Bach's keyboard music is the same no matter what keyboard instrument is used: a single, equal dynamic for all lines, with special attention paid to their harmonic integration. Use of pedal is, of course, verboten at all times, as is that very worst of all pianistic excesses when playing Bach on the piano: treating one line or group of lines as "melody," and one line or group of lines as "accompaniment." (With thanks to A.C. Douglas.)

[Lance]

I am really quite enamoured of all the arrangements of Bach's works normally heard on the organ or other keyboard that have been transcribed for orchestra. I think the primary purpose in anyone making transcriptions is to bring the music to a larger audience. Stokowski's transcriptions rank among the finest, along with those by Ormandy, Bossenroth and the myriad others. The great organ music of Bach has finally been heard my huge numbers of people that would never otherwise enter a church to hear the music. After all, Bach, too, was a great transcriber of not only some of his own original music but other composers as well. Liszt and his contemporaries wrote opera excerpts for the piano so that these melodies could be enjoyed by countless others who would never have an opportunity to hear the operas. I'm all for whatever it takes to bring great music to the millions - even if in the form of transcriptions. Imagine not hearing "Ich ruf zu dir" played on the piano by such an illustrious Bachian such as the late Edwin Fischer!

[Corlyss_D]

orotund

Bravo, Werner, for using an underappreciated word.

[dulcinea]

Whenever I play my FANTASIA dvd, I always turn off the sound of the Toccata and Fugue section, and use what's playing on WUSF-FM as soundtrack. The turgid excess of that transcription is an insult to the sensitivity and art of JSB.

[C.B.]

This statement is in itself so orotund, pompous and garish that is has a long way top go to match the quality of musicmaking - or the intelletual level - of a Beecham, Stokowski, or any other great musicians of the past or present that you haven't yet thought of.

First of all, it's not a "statement", but a question, and a valid one. How exactly do you play Bach (or Handel, or Rameau, or Couperin, or any number of other composers of the Baroque) on a modern piano and not sound anachronistic and stylistically "out of whack". I submit that it's very hard to do--I myself have heard very few pianists who have the proper awareness of baroque phrasing (dance-influenced, with phrasing tied to smaller motivic units, not "long lines") to be credible. It may be "great music-making" and such to a lot of people, but to me, Bach on the piano invariably sounds like the music was written in the 19th century, not the 18th.

If that's your cup of tea, fine--but it's not mine.

[dzalman]

How exactly do you play Bach (or Handel, or Rameau, or Couperin, or any number of other composers of the Baroque) on a modern piano and not sound anachronistic and stylistically "out of whack". I submit that it's very hard to do--I myself have heard very few pianists who have the proper awareness of baroque phrasing (dance-influenced, with phrasing tied to smaller motivic units, not "long lines") to be credible. It may be "great music-making" and such to a lot of people, but to me, Bach on the piano invariably sounds like the music was written in the 19th century, not the 18th.

You said it yourself in your above. It's not the piano per se that's the problem. It's pianists. A piano is as good a keyboard instrument as any for the performance of Baroque keyboard music. After all, Bach especially wrote almost all his keyboard music (the organ music excepted) for any keyboard instrument the player happened to have available.

[C.B.]

You said it yourself in your above. It's not the piano per se that's the problem. It's pianists. A piano is as good a keyboard instrument as any for the performance of Baroque keyboard music. After all, Bach especially wrote almost all his keyboard music (the organ music excepted) for any keyboard instrument the player happened to have available.

That's true only to a limited extent. With a work such as the Goldberg Variations, for example, or indeed any baroque piece that demands two (or more) independent contrasting keyboards, performance on a modern grand piano amounts to a compromise. In the case of the Goldbergs, in those variations where the hands cross (and there are several), the music must be re-written to be playable on the single manual of the piano. And contrasting effects between manuals can only be hinted at, as well,

[dzalman]

That's true only to a limited extent. With a work such as the Goldberg Variations, for example, or indeed any baroque piece that demands two (or more) independent contrasting keyboards, performance on a modern grand piano amounts to a compromise. In the case of the Goldbergs, in those variations where the hands cross (and there are several), the music must be re-written to be playable on the single manual of the piano. And contrasting effects between manuals can only be hinted at, as well,

Of all Bach's keyboard music he wrote only two or three works specifically for double keyboard harpsichord. All the rest (except for the organ works) were written for a single-manual keyboard instrument, and Bach didn't care which instrument was used, including Silbermann's piano with which he was familiar.

[12tone]

What is the proper style for playing Bach on the piano? I have often noticed that, when played on an obviously anachronistic modern piano, Bach is made to sound orotund and pompous in a manner that brings to mind the painfully garish and tasteless orchestrations of Beecham, Respighi, Schonberg and Stokowsky.

I don't like Bach or any Baroque keyboard work played on these huge, lavish brand new concert pianos. The sound -- it's just so not...baroque! Like the piano Angela Hewitt used for her take on Bach's English Suites or the one Schiff used for his take on WTC book I...although his playing made up for the awful "newness" of the piano he used.

It's too new. It sounds too sparkly, too rich! If you're going to play baroque I like the piano to sound as bad (in other words highly manipulated) as possible because the instruments back then probably weren't of our caliber -- they probably didn't sound as nice as they do now.

I just opened a can of worms! Sorry, HIPsters! I'm in the same boat as you! I enjoy my HIP performances!

Now back to piano... Notice the piano Gould used? The sound? The crisp instant note? Not the lavishly glossed over beautiful tone from a huge new piano.

To play Bach on something like that...you're ruining it for the rest of us!



-------------

SIDE NOTE:

Yes I know, instruments 'back in the day' probably WERE nice. But take a look at the sound of a violin from back then (from a HIP cd) and that of a new violin of today. Notice how utterly awful the 'new sound' is. No personality...or at least not until it's 'broken into'

The more technology tries to make things better it just makes things worse. We want our instruments sounding so good that they loose their personality. Such clinically-developed and produced instruments have about as much personality as a spoon.

[12tone]

That's true only to a limited extent. With a work such as the Goldberg Variations, for example, or indeed any baroque piece that demands two (or more) independent contrasting keyboards, performance on a modern grand piano amounts to a compromise. In the case of the Goldbergs, in those variations where the hands cross (and there are several), the music must be re-written to be playable on the single manual of the piano. And contrasting effects between manuals can only be hinted at, as well,

Can you explain your post about the Goldbergs? I thought only one piano was used to play that...

And what's a manual?

[premont]

[quote="C.B."]
First of all, it's not a "statement", but a question, and a valid one. How exactly [i]do[/i] you play Bach (or Handel, or Rameau, or Couperin, or any number of other composers of the Baroque) on a modern piano and not sound anachronistic and stylistically "out of whack". I submit that it's very hard to do--I myself have heard very few pianists who have the proper awareness of baroque phrasing (dance-influenced, with phrasing tied to smaller motivic units, not "long lines") to be credible. It may be "great music-making" and such to a lot of people, but to me, Bach on the piano invariably sounds like the music was written in the 19th century, not the 18th.
[/quote]

Thanks, this couldn´t be stated more clear-cut.

[premont]

[quote="dzalman"] and Bach didn't care which instrument was used, including Silbermann's piano with which he was familiar.[/quote]

How do you know that? And how do you know, he liked it. He didn´t , as far as we know, own one. And even if he liked it, how do you know, he would like a modern Steinway (or worse Steinway and Sons), which sounds very unlike a Silberman pianoforte, and which is most unsuited to polyphonic music?
Regards,

[premont]

[quote="dzalman"] After all, Bach especially wrote almost all his keyboard music (the organ music excepted) for any keyboard instrument the player happened to have available.[/quote]

In Bachs time Steinways were not available.

[karlhenning]

--I myself have heard very few pianists who have the proper awareness of baroque phrasing (dance-influenced, with phrasing tied to smaller motivic units, not "long lines") to be credible. It may be "great music-making" and such to a lot of people, but to me, Bach on the piano invariably sounds like the music was written in the 19th century, not the 18th.

Well, you do specifically state that this is your viewpoint (but to me).

For me, I find myself in no danger whatever of imagining the Goldberg Variations, when played on the piano, to be 19th-century music. It doesn't even sound to me anything like the Suite fra Holbergs tid, which is a 19th-century composer playing at 18th-century music ... yet another distinct sphere of activity.

Do you read Goethe in English? When you read Goethe in English, do you have trouble distinguishing Goethe from Marlowe? :-)

[dzalman]

and Bach didn't care which instrument was used, including Silbermann's piano with which he was familiar.

How do you know that? And how do you know, he liked it. He didn´t , as far as we know, own one. And even if he liked it, how do you know, he would like a modern Steinway (or worse Steinway and Sons), which sounds very unlike a Silberman pianoforte, and which is most unsuited to polyphonic music?

Bach liked the later Silbermann pianos well enough to become an agent for Silbermann, and sold his pianos. It could even be argued Bach wrote the keyboard portions of his Musical Offering with the Silbermann piano specifically in mind as he was certain the dedicatee would hear it performed on a Silbermann piano (King Frederick was a Silbermann piano freak, and owned a dozen or so of Silbermann's pianos on which Bach himself performed for the king, and on which Bach improvised the original 3-voice fugue on a theme given him by Frederick which became the basis for the Musical Offering).

And whether or not Bach would have liked a modern Steinway concert grand is beside the point, the point being that Bach was indifferent to the keyboard instrument used to play his keyboard music (again, the organ works excepted).

[C.B.]

That's true only to a limited extent. With a work such as the Goldberg Variations, for example, or indeed any baroque piece that demands two (or more) independent contrasting keyboards, performance on a modern grand piano amounts to a compromise. In the case of the Goldbergs, in those variations where the hands cross (and there are several), the music must be re-written to be playable on the single manual of the piano. And contrasting effects between manuals can only be hinted at, as well,

Can you explain your post about the Goldbergs? I thought only one piano was used to play that...

And what's a manual?

Bach is unequivocal in his requiring a two-manual Klavier (keyboard instrument). This means that there are two manuals (keyboards) on one single instrument (see below), not two separate instruments. The only two-manual instruments in general use at the time were harpsichords (not counting the organ), making this, by elimination, Bach's preferred instrument for the Goldbergs.

A manual, BTW, refers simply to the keyboard (the naturals and accidental keys--88 of them on a piano, 61 on a typical 5-octave harpsichord) that typically actuates one or more sets of stops or registers. Again, there can be two or more manuals on a harpsichord. Some large late 18th century German harpsichords (build by the Haas family in Hambrug) had four!

I can't explain how the Goldbergs work any better than what I did, except to refer to details in the score. I suggest you acquire the Dover edtion and begin studyuing it--everything should become very clear once you do that, providing, of course, that you can read music.

[C.B.]

Do you read Goethe in English? When you read Goethe in English, do you have trouble distinguishing Goethe from Marlowe?

Actually, I've read Goethe (and Thomas Mann, and Hermann Hesse, and Franz Kafka, and Friedrich Duerrenmatt, and Guenther Grass...) in the original German, but I'm not sure what your line of reasoning has to do with the discussion at hand.

[dzalman]

[H]ow do you know [Bach] would like a modern Steinway (or worse Steinway and Sons), which ... is most unsuited to polyphonic music?

I suggest you read this blog article which neatly counters your above unwarranted assertion.

[C.B.]

[H]ow do you know [Bach] would like a modern Steinway (or worse Steinway and Sons), which ... is most unsuited to polyphonic music?

I suggest you read this blog article which neatly counters your above unwarranted assertion.

After a quick scan of the article, what caught my eye was this statement: "Under control of the proper ten fingers, the hammered strings of the piano can be made to sound just as precise as the plucked strings of a harpsichord. It's something incredibly difficult to achieve consistently, and over the stretch of an entire piece (and in fact requires that the piano's key action be carefully adjusted to the task), but not impossible, as Glenn Gould performing Bach on the piano makes manifestly and magnificently clear."

This is hardly an argument to justify the exclusive use of the piano in Bach, especially as it comes from an unabashed fan of Glenn Gould. If your goal is to "sound like the harpsichord", why not get it over with and play the damn piece on the harpsichord?

[dzalman]

[H]ow do you know [Bach] would like a modern Steinway (or worse Steinway and Sons), which ... is most unsuited to polyphonic music?

I suggest you read this blog article which neatly counters your above unwarranted assertion.

After a quick scan of the article, what caught my eye was this statement: "Under control of the proper ten fingers, the hammered strings of the piano can be made to sound just as precise as the plucked strings of a harpsichord. It's something incredibly difficult to achieve consistently, and over the stretch of an entire piece (and in fact requires that the piano's key action be carefully adjusted to the task), but not impossible, as Glenn Gould performing Bach on the piano makes manifestly and magnificently clear."

This is hardly an argument to justify the exclusive use of the piano in Bach, especially as it comes from an unabashed fan of Glenn Gould. If your goal is to "sound like the harpsichord", why not get it over with and play the damn piece on the harpsichord?

No-one here, as far as I can determine, has made an argument to "justify the exclusive use of the piano in Bach," nor was Douglas in that linked article (and I take it you followed the closing internal link in that article that expounded further on the matter). Defenders of the use of the piano in playing Bach's keyboard works (Douglas included) were merely trying to make the point that nothing about the instrument per se precludes its being used to perform Bach's keyboard works properly, that being entirely in the hands of the performer himself -- literally.

[premont]

[quote="dzalman"]
I suggest you read [url=http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandf ... arpsi.html]this blog article[/url] which neatly counters your above unwarranted assertion.[/quote]

Read my contributions again, and you shall certainly see, that the questions, I posed to your own unwarranted postulates, isn´t answered at all in the article, you refer to.
Regards,

[dzalman]

I suggest you read this blog article which neatly counters your above unwarranted assertion.

Read my contributions again, and you shall certainly see, that the questions, I posed to your own unwarranted postulates, isn´t answered at all in the article, you refer to.

You asserted that the Steinway concert grand "is most unsuited to polyphonic music." The article I pointed you to neatly shows that assertion to be false. It shows that the piano per se is as suitable as any other keyboard instrument for the performance of polyphonic music, and that it's the performer himself who's responsible for utilizing the piano in the right way to perform such music properly.

[premont]

[quote="dzalman"]

And whether or not Bach would have liked a modern Steinway concert grand is beside the point, the point being that Bach was indifferent to the keyboard instrument used to play his keyboard music (again, the organ works excepted).[/quote]

Maybe Bach hadnt been indifferent, if he had heard how bad his harpsichord music is sounding on a modern concert grand, no matter the pianist. Or your next thesis perhaps will be, that it in fact ought to be played on Wurlitzer-organ? Or Ondes Martenot? Why not?
Regards,

[premont]

[quote="dzalman"] It shows that the piano per se is as suitable as any other keyboard instrument for the performance of polyphonic music, and that it's the performer himself who's responsible for utilizing the piano in the right way to perform such music properly.[/quote]

But this is false.
No matter, I asked you, how you could know, what Bach would think of the Concert Grand.
Regards,

[dzalman]

And whether or not Bach would have liked a modern Steinway concert grand is beside the point, the point being that Bach was indifferent to the keyboard instrument used to play his keyboard music (again, the organ works excepted).

Maybe Bach hadnt been indifferent, if he had heard how bad his harpsichord music is sounding on a modern concert grand, no matter the pianist. Or your next thesis perhaps will be, that it in fact ought to be played on Wurlitzer-organ? Or Ondes Martenot? Why not?

Why not, indeed.

Your "argument" is no argument at all. It's merely a statement reflective of your own personal preference for the harpsichord in the performance of this keyboard music. That, and nothing more.

[dzalman]

It shows that the piano per se is as suitable as any other keyboard instrument for the performance of polyphonic music, and that it's the performer himself who's responsible for utilizing the piano in the right way to perform such music properly.

But this is false.
No matter, I asked you, how you could know, what Bach would think of the Concert Grand.

Stop being ridiculous.

First, my statement is absolutely true. Demonstrably true.

Second, I've already shown you that it's a totally MOOT point what Bach would have thought of the modern concert grand. As I've already remarked several times, Bach was indifferent to the keyboard instrument used to play his keyboard works. There's no reason whatsoever to suppose he would have made an exception in the case of a modern concert grand. You've zero evidence, and nothing beyond your own personal prejudices in this matter, to argue any differently.

[premont]

Dear Dzalman

Your claim, that Bach was indifferent, as to which instrument his music was played on, is plucked out of the air and reflects your own wishful thinking. He just formed the music specifically to suit the instrument he intended.

It is demonstrably true, that the harpsichord is better suited for polyphonic music than the piano. If you think otherwise, this reflects you own wishful thinking too. Note that I write wishful thinking and not prejudice.

What is the natural choice for Bachs harpsichord music? Of course harpsichord. Shouldn´t you similarly think, that Liszt played on harpsichord were anacronistic? And find that piano was the natural choice for Liszt.

So did you ever consider, why keyboard instrument building and musical styles developed together in constant accordance.

Finally: For my sake you may play Bachs harpsichord music on whatever instrument you want, even Steinway & sons, but don´t tell me anything than the result isn´t but a mere shadow of Bachs intentions.

Regards,

[dzalman]

Dear Dzalman

Your claim, that Bach was indifferent, as to which [keyboard] instrument his [keyboard] music was played on, is plucked out of the air and reflects your own wishful thinking. He just formed the music specifically to suit the instrument he intended.

You're quite wrong about that as a matter of established historical and musicological fact. You need to do some serious reading in the literature, Premont, instead of running off at the mouth with gibberish like that. As to the rest of your ill-considered rant (not quoted here), I refuse to make further comment.

[premont]

[quote="dzalman"][quote="premont"]Dear Dzalman

Your claim, that Bach was indifferent, as to which instrument his music was played on, is plucked out of the air and reflects your own wishful thinking. He just formed the music specifically to suit the instrument he intended.[/quote]
You're quite wrong about that as a matter of established historical and musicological fact. [/quote]

Don´t change my words when you quote my post or make additions which change the content. Actually I know much about this topic. I first and foremost had Bachs relatively idiomatic instrumental writing in mind, fx his transcriptions of violin music for harpsichord. Some of Bachs keyboard music is definitely for organ (Orgelbüchlein fx), some definitely for harpsichord (Partitas, French Ouverture - some of this may be played on clavichord for practice) and some may be played as well on harpsichord as on organ (Die Kunst der Fuge, the early Toccatas manualiter fx.), but Bach didn´t himself own a hammerklavier (strange if he liked it so much, and even if he liked it , it is not a Steiway) It is you, who must prove your claim, that a rendering on Steinway of fx. The Goldbergs is just as good as a rendering on harpsichord. Incidentally "just as good" means equal, not better, and why play Bach on piano, if it isn´t better than when played on harpsichord? This is really the heart of the matter: Why play Bach on piano, when you are so lucky to have the possibility to play it on harpsichord, and the piano isn´t better? Remember that a period harpsichord and a Steinway hasn´t got anything but the presence of a keyboard in common, not even the touch is the same. I think actually, it is you, who have to refer to matters of taste, not me.

Regards,

[pizza]

The above dispute revolves strictly upon matters of taste and nothing else. There are those who find the sound of a harpsichord limiting, myself included. I much prefer the sonority of a piano. As to what Bach would have preferred if he had heard a modern Steinway is merely a guess and any guess is probably as good as any other since we'll never know the answer. These are the kinds of disputes that can never resolve because the one essential ingredient for its resolution will always be missing -- in this case Bach's preference. And even if Bach could somehow tell us from the great beyond what he would prefer, that doesn't in any way simplify the matter of personal taste. Where taste is concerned we can also disagree with Bach.

[Werner]

PIZZA, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THE ISSUE INTO PERSPECTIVE!

[C.B.]

The above dispute revolves strictly upon matters of taste and nothing else. There are those who find the sound of a harpsichord limiting, myself included. I much prefer the sonority of a piano. As to what Bach would have preferred if he had heard a modern Steinway is merely a guess and any guess is probably as good as any other since we'll never know the answer. These are the kinds of disputes that can never resolve because the one essential ingredient for its resolution will always be missing -- in this case Bach's preference. And even if Bach could somehow tell us from the great beyond what he would prefer, that doesn't in any way simplify the matter of personal taste. Where taste is concerned we can also disagree with Bach.

I'll go along with the "personal taste" angle, except in those works where a seond manual is required, such as the Goldberg Variations. In the case of that work (as well as a few other works by Bach, and many by Couperin, Rameau, etc., where the second manual is essential), the music must be, in effect, re-written to be played on a single manual. I find this unacceptable and for that reason (coupled with issues having to do with my quirky personal taste) prefer harpsichord recordings of the Goldbergs.

What I really find frustrating is that most fans of the piano version refuse to acknowledge that this problem exists. If something like this were to happen with a Beethoven or Brahms symphony, the cries of indignant music lovers everywhere would rise to the upper stratosphere, yet in the case of Bach's Goldbergs, barely a whimper is heard.

[pizza]

The above dispute revolves strictly upon matters of taste and nothing else. There are those who find the sound of a harpsichord limiting, myself included. I much prefer the sonority of a piano. As to what Bach would have preferred if he had heard a modern Steinway is merely a guess and any guess is probably as good as any other since we'll never know the answer. These are the kinds of disputes that can never resolve because the one essential ingredient for its resolution will always be missing -- in this case Bach's preference. And even if Bach could somehow tell us from the great beyond what he would prefer, that doesn't in any way simplify the matter of personal taste. Where taste is concerned we can also disagree with Bach.

I'll go along with the "personal taste" angle, except in those works where a seond manual is required, such as the Goldberg Variations. In the case of that work (as well as a few other works by Bach, and many by Couperin, Rameau, etc., where the second manual is essential), the music must be, in effect, re-written to be played on a single manual. I find this unacceptable and for that reason (coupled with issues having to do with my quirky personal taste) prefer harpsichord recordings of the Goldbergs.

What I really find frustrating is that most fans of the piano version refuse to acknowledge that this problem exists. If something like this were to happen with a Beethoven or Brahms symphony, the cries of indignant music lovers everywhere would rise to the upper stratosphere, yet in the case of Bach's Goldbergs, barely a whimper is heard.

They refuse to acknowledge "this problem" because for them it's not a problem. BTW, there have been piano transcriptions of Beethoven symphonies which also produce few whimpers. If I recall correctly, Liszt transcribed all nine. Everyone is free to like what he likes and dislike what he dislikes, and to change his mind about both as many times as he wishes. That's life.

[Werner]

Pizza's reference to the Liszt transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies cites a notable example that that's been done, too - and brilliantly. Have you heard Cyprien Katsaris play any of these? Try it!

Leaving aside for the moment the Couperins and Rameaus, of course, the reason so much of this sort has been done with Bach is the incredible adaptability of his music. I remember the Sigurd Rasher Saxophone Quartet play some Bach arrangements years ago - don't ask me of what! - but what came through was the unmistakable characteristic of Bach's music.

And that's what's behind the plethora of Bach-Busonis and Bach-Stokowskis. These are all incredible tributes to the genius of Bach - just as Bach honored his contemporarites by transcribing their works liberally.

If our contemporary purists decide to have none of that, that's their privilege - and, perhaps, their loss. As for myself, I'll consider myself free to enjoy - and perhaps be inspired by Bach's great works on the harpsichord, by the Goldberg Variations in such varying hands on the piano as Angela Hewitt or Glenn Gould - to mention just two - or to pay attention to what inspiration an artist yet to show up finds in the master's man's genius.

[C.B.]

Pizza's reference to the Liszt transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies cites a notable example that that's been done, too - and brilliantly. Have you heard Cyprien Katsaris play any of these? Try it!

Yes, I have, and I'd rather hear the originals.

Leaving aside for the moment the Couperins and Rameaus, of course, the reason so much of this sort has been done with Bach is the incredible adaptability of his music. I remember the Sigurd Rasher Saxophone Quartet play some Bach arrangements years ago - don't ask me of what!-but what came through was the unmistakable characteristic of Bach's music.

And that's what's behind the plethora of Bach-Busonis and Bach-Stokowskis. These are all incredible tributes to the genius of Bach - just as Bach honored his contemporarites by transcribing their works liberally.

The obvious flaw in your comparison is that Bach wrote at the same time and in the same language as his contemporaries, hence the transcriptions are very close in spirit to the originals. Stokie's transcriptions are far removed in time and spirit from the originals--it seems to me that what comes through mostly is Stokie's ego, and very little of Bach. But hey, didn't you get up on your soapbox a while back about 'reading works in the original language', and all that?

If our contemporary purists decide to have none of that, that's their privilege - and, perhaps, their loss. As for myself, I'll consider myself free to enjoy - and perhaps be inspired by Bach's great works on the harpsichord, by the Goldberg Variations in such varying hands on the piano as Angela Hewitt or Glenn Gould - to mention just two - or to pay attention to what inspiration an artist yet to show up finds in the master's man's genius.

Naturally, if people want to listen to piano transcriptions of the Goldbergs, I'm not going to stop them. I suppose I should be grateful that people are listening to Bach in the first place, rather than rap or some other sub-human form of music. But the whole piano/harpsichord debate makes me wonder if fans of the piano really know what they're missing, if they've even heard the subtleties that are built into the score that can only be realized on two manuals. You'll never hear them, you know, if all you listen to is the piano version.

Hell, if you piano guys were really enterprising, you'd commission Steinway or Boesendorfer to build a true two-manual grand, with two complete set of strings and different striking points for the two mechanisms (for a contrasting timbre between the manuals). Now that would worth hearing!